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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30733

Conference Calendar

 

JOHNNY NARCISSE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DONALD CREYDARE; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE;

LOUISIANA BOARD OF PAROLE; RICHARD L. STALDER;

JOHN P. WHITLEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-337

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

October 17, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny Narcisse, Louisiana prisoner #101252, appeals from

the dismissal of his prisoner civil-rights action as frivolous,

for failure to state a claim, and for seeking monetary relief

against defendants who are immune from suit. Narcisse moves for

leave to file a supplemental brief; his motion is DENIED. 

Narcisse contends that the district court erred by dismissing his

claim against the members of the Louisiana Board of Parole (“the

Board”) on the basis of absolute immunity and that he stated
No. 00-30733

-2-

facts against Parole Officer Donald Creydare sufficient to

withstand a dismissal for failure to allege facts giving rise to

a constitutional violation. Narcisse concedes that his claims

were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), but he

argues that his claims should have been dismissed without

prejudice so that he could pursue further relief in state and

federal court.

Narcisse filed an amended complaint after the magistrate

judge filed his report and recommendations. The amended

complaint superseded Narcisse’s initial complaint and should have

been considered by the district court. King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d

344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994).

To the extent that Narcisse sought relief against the

individual members of the Board (he did not explicitly do so),

the allegations in the amended complaint made clear that the

members of the Board had no knowledge that he had been arrested;

any claims Narcisse may have wished to raise against them based

on their own actions lacked any basis in fact. To the extent

that Narcisse may have sought to hold the individual members of

the Board vicariously liable for Creydare’s actions, his claim

was legally frivolous. Baskin v. Parker, 602 F.2d 1205, 1207-08

(5th Cir. 1979). Creydare was absolutely immune from Narcisse’s

damages action. Littles v. Board of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68

F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995). Narcisse’s amended complaint

therefore was subject to dismissal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations. ( a ) *Requirements for “R” classification.* An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if: ( 1 ) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
( 2 ) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
( 3 ) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
( b ) *Petition approval.* The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
( c ) *Validity of visa.* The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( d ) *Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R).* The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
[74 FR 51237, Oct. 6, 2009]
### §3796gg–0d. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §2006, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. A, title IV, §402(3), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1791, which authorized appropriations for each fiscal year until fiscal year 2005, was omitted as obsolete.
§ 48.10 Additional contracts. ( a ) *Generally.* A registered foreign board of trade that wishes to make an additional futures, option or swap contract available for trading by identified members or other participants located in the United States with direct access to its electronic trading and order matching system must submit a written request prior to offering the contracts from within the United States. Such a written request must include the terms and conditions of the additional futures, option or swap contracts and a certification that the additional contracts meet the requirements of § 48.8(c), if applicable, and that the foreign board of trade and the clearing organization continue to satisfy the requirements and conditions of registration. The foreign board of trade can make available for trading by direct access the additional contracts ten business days after the date of receipt by the Commission of the written request, unless the Commission notifies the foreign board of trade that additional time is needed to complete its review of policy or other issues pertinent to the additional contracts. A registered foreign board of trade may list for trading by direct access an additional futures or option contract on a non-narrow-based security index pursuant to the Commission certification procedures set forth in § 30.13(d) and appendix D to part 30 of this chapter.
( b ) *Option contracts on previously approved futures contracts.* ( 1 ) If the option is on a futures contract that is not a linked contract, the option contract may be made available for trading by direct access by filing with the Commission no later than the business day preceding the initial listing of the contract: ( i ) A copy of the terms and conditions of the additional contract and
( ii ) A certification that the foreign board of trade and the clearing organization continue to satisfy the conditions of its registration.
( 2 ) If the option is on a futures contract that is a linked contract, the option contract may be made available for trading by direct access by filing with the Commission no later than the business day preceding the initial listing of the contract: ( i ) A copy of the terms and conditions of the additional contract; and
( ii ) A certification that the foreign board of trade and the clearing organization continue to satisfy the conditions of its registration, including the conditions specifically applicable to linked contracts set forth in § 48.8(c).
( 3 ) If the option is on a non-narrow-based security index futures contract which may be offered or sold in the United States pursuant to a Commission certification issued pursuant to § 30.13 of this chapter, the option contract may be listed for trading by direct access without further action by either the registered foreign board of trade or the Commission.
#### § 1508.1015 Suspension.

*Suspension* is an action taken by a suspending official under subpart G of this part that immediately prohibits a person from participating in covered transactions and transactions covered under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1) for a temporary period, pending completion of an agency investigation and any judicial or administrative proceedings that may ensue. A person so excluded is suspended.
§ 229.520 Job classification and structure. A recipient shall not: ( a ) Classify a job as being for males or for females;
( b ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority lists, career ladders, or tenure systems based on sex; or
( c ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority systems, career ladders, or tenure systems for similar jobs, position descriptions, or job requirements that classify persons on the basis of sex, unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the positions in question as set forth in § 229.550.
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

I, G. Robert Tatum, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
BEVsystems International, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of
my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

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

September 15, 2003



                                            /s/ G. Robert Tatum
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Name: G. Robert Tatum
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.28





Exhibit 4.28



English Translation




POWER OF ATTORNEY




Entrusting Parties:

Xu Dong

ID Card Number:
 _____ 


Address:
 _____ 





and




Du Qicai

ID Card Number:
 _____ 


Address:
 _____ 





Entrusted Party:

[_____]

ID Card Number: _____

Residential Address: _____

Postal Code: _____




We, Xu Dong and Du Qicai (hereinafter referred to as the “Entrusting Parties”), are natural
persons of the PRC with Chinese nationality. The Entrusting Parties hold, in aggregate, 100%
equity interest of Shenzhen Wentai Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Target
Company”). The Entrusting Parties hereby irrevocably authorize a person designated by Shenzhen
Wentai Education Industry Development Co., Ltd. (“Wentai
Education”), [____] (hereinafter referred to
as the “Entrusted Party”) to exercise the following rights during the term hereof:




To authorize the Entrusted Party with full power to act for us:



To exercise all voting rights owned by us as shareholders of the Target Company, including but
not limited to act as our authorized representative to nominate and elect the senior management of
the Target Company, such as directors, supervisors and general manager, at its shareholders’
meetings.



The above authorization and entrustment are subject to the following conditions precedent: the
Entrusted Party is a natural person of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as
the “PRC”; and for the purpose of this document, excluding Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) with
Chinese nationality, and a person designated by and holds position(s) in Wentai Education, and
agrees to accept the above authorization and entrustment. Once the Entrusted Party ceases to hold
any position in Wentai Education or Wentai Education issues written notice for removal of the
Entrusted Party, we shall immediately withdraw the entrustment and authorization made to the
Entrusted Party herein, and shall designate and authorize any other natural person of the PRC with
Chinese nationality as designated by Wentai Education to exercise our shareholders’ voting rights
described above at any shareholders’ meetings of the Target Company.


 


 









 





The Entrusted Party shall carefully and diligently perform the entrusted obligations within
the scope of authorization according to laws, and shall hold harmless the Entrusting Parties from
and against all possible losses and damages resulting from such authorization and entrustment
(except for any losses and damages suffered by the Entrusting Parties due to their willful or
material faults), failing which, he/she shall be legally liable to the Entrusting Parties and the
Target Company.



This Power of Attorney, which has a term of 20 years, shall become effective on the date of
its execution.


 


 









 





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Xu Dong	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Xu Dong
 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Du Qicai	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Du Qicai
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	04
(mm) 23 (dd)
2010 (yy)
220 A.2d 231.

#### Richard Paolantonio *vs.*Evans Plating Co.

JUNE 15, 1966.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers and Joslin, JJ.

Joslin, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the workmen’s compensation commission affirming a decree in which a trial commissioner denied and dismissed an employee’s *72original petition for compensation benefits on the ground that he had failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence his allegations that his disabling hernia was work-connected and either traumatic or occupational in origin.

*Joseph G. Miller, Robert L. Kieman,*for petitioner.

*Joseph A. Kelly,*for respondent.

The obligation of the full commission when it reviews a decree of a trial commissioner is to consider and decide all questions raised by the appellant’s reasons of appeal. *Cairo*v. *Sayles Finishing Plants, Inc.,*83 R. I. 297, 302; *McCoy*v. *Cataldo,*90 R. I. 365, 373. While the decree of the full commission in this case purports to affirm all of the trial commissioner’s findings of fact, it does not stand alone but must be construed in the light of the decision on which it is predicated. *Gray*v. *Kagan,*87 R. I. 264; *Balcom*v. *Providence Sheraton Corp.,*98 R. I. 357, 201 A.2d 913. So construed it is apparent that there is at least serious doubt, if not certainty, that the full commission, although it found that the employee’s incapacity was not caused by a traumatic incident, failed to consider the employee’s additional contention brought to it by a specific reason of appeal that the causative was occupational in origin. That failure necessitates a remand for the purpose of enabling the full commission to make a full review of the decree of the trial commissioner .in accordance with the requirements of law.

The petitioner’s appeal is sustained, the decree appealed from is reversed without prejudice, and the cause is remanded to the workmen’s compensation commission for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1173

___________

Guy Heide; Michael A. Kosel; *

Duane Taylor, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Calvin L. Scovel, Office of the *

Inspector General, U.S. Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Transportation; Craig S. Singleton, *

Office of the Inspector General, U.S. *

Department of Transportation, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2009

Filed: December 8, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guy Heide, Michael Kosel, and Duane Taylor (plaintiffs) appeal following the

district court’s1

 order dismissing their civil action and the court’s denial of their postjudgment motion. We conclude that plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter
-2-

or amend the judgment was filed more than ten days after the district court’s entry of

judgment, and therefore did not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (stating as relevant that time to appeal runs from disposition of

timely Rule 59(e) motion or from Rule 60 motion filed within 10 days of entry of

judgment); cf. Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (motion

for reconsideration filed more than 10 days following entry of judgment does not toll

time for appeal). Thus, plaintiffs’ January 9, 2009 notice of appeal was timely only

as to the November 10, 2008 order denying the motion to reopen, but not as to the

underlying October 2, 2008 judgment. See Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal

must be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment or order from which appeal is

taken). Because, however, the Rule 59(e) motion was untimely, the district court’s

November 10, 2008 order denying the motion was a nullity, and this court lacks

jurisdiction to review that order. See Sanders, 862 F.2d at 168 (if motion

characterized as Rule 59(e) motion is untimely made, court loses jurisdiction over

motion and any ruling on it becomes nullity); see also Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992,

998 (8th Cir. 2001) (this court lacked jurisdiction to review district court’s decision

on untimely Rule 59(e) motion). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and denying all pending motions as moot. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground

Package Sys., Inc,, 566 F.3d 771, 773 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts are obligated

to consider sua sponte jurisdictional issues where it appears jurisdiction is lacking).

______________________________
#### William S. Sussman, Respondent, v. Columbia Trust Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements; the date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 22, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00741

- CR

Everett Rainey, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MB ERTON AND FIELD
AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgment: IT IS OR DERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment

of the trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified

below for observance.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

      ( print page 75572)    
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Aimsi Technologies, Inc. (“AIMT”) because of questions regarding the accuracy of statements made by AIMT to the public in press releases and in fax tout sheets concerning, among other things, Aimsi's contract with China Global Distribution Corp. for the distribution of Aimsi's Automatic Large Area Remote Mapper.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on December 15, 2004 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 29, 2004.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-27767 Filed 12-15-04; 1:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7495

ELIHUE MAHLER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ABDUL H. JAMALUDEEN, Doctor/M.D,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

CORPORAL COX, Corporal; DEPUTY BAPTISTE, Deputy,

 Defendants.

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

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01468-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: May 13, 2019

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Elihue Mahler, Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse-McNelis, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Elihue Martin Mahler appeals the district court’s orders and judgment denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and hold

that Mahler’s cause of action against Dr. Jamaludeen did not accrue until the subsequent 

x-ray evaluations in 2016. As such, Mahler’s appeal was not barred by the statute of 

limitations. However, we nonetheless agree with the district court that he failed to 

establish the subjective component of his deliberate indifference claim. See Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing standard). The undisputed

medical records show that Dr. Jamaludeen relied on a radiologist report that found no 

abnormalities in Mahler’s left wrist or forearm. E.R. 165–66. Therefore, Mahler’s claim 

that Dr. Jamaludeen intentionally lied about his arm being broken is entirely unsupported 

by the evidence. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

*

 Mahler v. Jamaludeen, No. 1:17-cv01468-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 3, 2018 & entered Dec. 4, 2018). We also deny 

Mahler’s pending motion to compel an expert witness. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * In his informal brief, Mahler does not challenge the district court’s rejection of 

his excessive force claims, so he has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the 

district court’s judgment. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson, 775 F.3d at 177 (“[O]ur review 

is limited to issues preserved in [the informal] brief.”).