alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 20, 2011

Decided January 20, 2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10

‐ 1872

MICHAEL MUEHL,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v.

BELINDA SCHRUBBE, et al.,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin.

No. 09

‐ cv

‐ 16

‐ bbc

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Wisconsin state prisoner Michael Muehl appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion for appointment of counsel during his unsuccessful lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

in which he claimed that prison nurse Gail Waltz and other defendants violated his Eighth

Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care. We affirm.

Muehl was imprisoned at Waupun Correctional Institution on December 12, 2007,

when he cut his left wrist in a suicide attempt. Dr. Paul Sumnicht treated and closed the

wound, but it opened again that night. Muehl alleged that Waltz—who observed him on

December 13—refused to treat his wound. His complaint, which named 12 defendants and

covered several alleged incidents of inadequate medical care, was severed into three cases, NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 10

‐ 1872 Page 2

and in this case only his claim against Waltz survived summary judgment. Muehl

subsequently moved for appointment of counsel, but the district court denied his motion.

After Muehl, proceeding pro se, presented his case at trial, the district court granted

Waltz judgment as a matter of law. Testimony at trial from Sumnicht and Waltz established

that the wound was only superficial, and thus the court concluded that even if Waltz

ignored the reopened wound on December 13, Muehl had not shown that he had a serious

medical need as required for his Eighth Amendment claim.

Muehl argues on appeal that the district court should have appointed counsel to

represent him at trial; counsel, he contends, would have found an expert to assess his

treatment in a way that would have led to a different outcome. A court weighing a motion

to appoint counsel must consider whether the difficulty of the case exceeds the plaintiff’s

capacity to litigate his claims and present his case coherently. See Pruitt v. Mote

, 503 F.3d

647, 654

‐ 55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Muehl argued in his motion that he did not know how

to prepare for a jury trial, that he was not as qualified as a “seasoned litigator” to cross

‐

examine witnesses, and that he needed counsel to procure expert testimony to counter

Waltz’s experts. But the district court properly applied Pruitt and denied his request,

explaining that the case was not complex, that Muehl appeared capable of litigating it (his

filings had “generally been reasoned and easy to understand”), and that all pro se litigants

are similarly handicapped by a lack of legal expertise and trial experience. See Pruitt

, 503

F.3d at 655

‐ 56; Johnson v. Doughty

, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006).

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30594

Shelby Bailey, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Kyle France, In His Official Capacity as Chief 

Executive of the Board of Commissioners of the 

Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CV-5888

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Smith and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal of the district court’s dismissal of Shelby Bailey’s 

action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 asserting that he was not provided program access 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30594 Document: 00515935238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 20-30594

2

for New Orleans Saints games at the Superdome. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et 

seq.; see also 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. This court has considered the appeal on 

the basis of the briefs, the record and the applicable authority. Having done 

so, the judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated in the 

district court’s very thorough, well-reasoned Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law and Reasons for Judgment.

Case: 20-30594 Document: 00515935238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Antonio Iacullo, also known as Tony Iacullo, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,588.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal *616Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
### SUBCHAPTER XLII—DIXIE PROJECT, UTAH
### §507. Orders for printing to be acted upon within one year

An order for public printing may not be acted upon by the Director of the Government Publishing Office after the expiration of one year unless the entire copy and illustrations for the work have been furnished within that period.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §115 (part) (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §80, 28 Stat. 621).

This section incorporates only the second clause of former section 115. The balance will be found in section 506 of the revision.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".
#### Pauline Callahan, Appellant, v. Syracuse Transit Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: There was no evidence from which contributory negligence could have been found and it was error for the court to submit that question to the jury. The jury, in an endeavor to follow the charge of the court, may have concluded that the negligence of the plaintiff contributed in some manner to the accident, and based the verdict on that conclusion. For this reason the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term for defendants Transit Corporation and Getman for no cause of action. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the periodic report of Delta Financial Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard Blass, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
      for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
      that to the best of my knowledge:





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 results of operations of the
                Company
                at the dates and for the periods
                indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.







Date:  November
      8, 2006







/s/Richard
      Blass Richard
      Blass


*Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
#### § 320.21 General.

In addition to the “pass-through” securities dealt with in subpart A of this part, the Association is authorized by section 306(g) of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1721(g), upon such terms and conditions as it may deem appropriate, to guarantee the timely payment of principal of and interest on “bond-type” securities which are based on and backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages which are insured or guaranteed by FHA, FmHA or the VA. The Association's guaranty of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. This subpart deals with such “bond-type” securities and does not purport to set forth all the procedures and requirements that apply to the issuance and guaranty of such securities. All such transactions are governed by the specific terms and provisions of the contracts entered into by the parties and the Bond-Type Securities Guide (the “Bond Guide”).
#### § 242.62 Releases of lien.

The mortgagor shall not sell, dispose of, transfer, or permit to be encumbered any security property without the prior approval of the lender and Commissioner, subject to thresholds or such other standards as HUD may establish for the approval requirement. Where there is a partial release of lien, the lender must make a determination, subject to prior review and approval by HUD, that the remaining or replacement property subject to the first lien provides adequate security for the remaining principal indebtedness.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; CASE NO: CV 09-1883 JCS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FLASHPOINT LAW, INC.

SHIRISH GUPTA (SBN 205584)

3 Waters Park Drive, Suite 224

San Mateo, CA 94403

Telephone: (650) 283-5539

Facsimile: (650) 638-9620

sgupta@flashpointlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Global IP Solutions, Inc.

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com

PATRICK J. ZHANG (CA SBN 251392)

PZhang@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522

Attorneys for Defendants

NETEASE.COM, INC. and NETEASE 

BEIJING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GLOBAL IP SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

NETEASE.COM, INC. and NETEASE, 

BEIJING,

Defendants.

Case No. CV-09-1883 JCS 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Mag. Judge Spero

Case 3:09-cv-01883-JCS Document 53 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-01883-JCS Document52 Filed04/12/10 Page1 of 2
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; CASE NO: CV 09-1883 JCS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties and Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Global IP Solutions, Inc and Defendants Netease.com, 

Inc. and Netease Beijing, through their Attorneys of Record, hereby stipulate that the abovecaptioned action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. Each party shall bear its own costs 

and fees.

Dated: April 12, 2010 FLASHPOINT LAW, INC.

By: /s/ Shirish Gupta 

Shirish Gupta

Attorneys for Plaintiff Global IP Solutions, Inc.

Dated: April 12, 2010 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Patrick J. Zhang____

Patrick J. Zhang

Attorneys for Defendants Netease.com, Inc. 

and Netease Beijing

E-Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X.B. regarding non- filing signatories, Shirish Gupta hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has 

been obtained from Patrick Zhang.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the above Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. This matter is hereby dismissed 

with prejudice in its entirety and each party shall bear its own costs and fees.

Dated: ________________ By: __________________________

Hon. Joseph C. Spero

United States Magistrate Judge

Case3:09-cv-01883-JCS Document52 Filed04/12/10 Page2 of 2

April 12, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-01883-JCS Document 53 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 3280.204 Kitchen cabinet protection. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 75745 , Sept. 16, 2024.
( a ) The bottom and sides of combustible kitchen cabinets over cooking ranges to a horizontal distance of 6 inches from the outside edge of the cooking range shall be protected with at least 5 ⁄ 16-inch thick gypsum board or equivalent limited combustible material. One-inch nominal framing members and trim are exempted from this requirement. The cabinet area over the cooking range or cooktops shall be protected by a metal hood (26-gauge sheet metal, or .017 stainless steel, or .024 aluminum, or .020 copper) with not less than a 3-inch eyebrow projecting horizontally from the front cabinet face. The 5 ⁄ 16-inch thick gypsum board or equivalent material which is above the top of the hood may be supported by the hood. A 3 ⁄ 8-inch enclosed air space shall be provided between the bottom surface of the cabinet and the gypsum board or equivalent material. The hood shall be at least as wide as the cooking range.
( b ) The 3-inch metal eyebrow required by paragraph (a) of this section will project from the front and rear cabinet faces when there is no adjacent surface behind the range, or the 5 ⁄ 16-inch thick gypsum board or equivalent material shall be extended to cover all exposed rear surfaces of the cabinet.
( c ) *Alternative compliance.* When all exposed surfaces along the bottoms and sides of combustible kitchen cabinets are protected as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the metal hood, the 5 ⁄ 16-inch thick gypsum board or equivalent material, and the 3 ⁄ 8-inch airspace required by paragraph (a) of this section can be omitted, provided that: ( 1 ) A microwave oven is installed between the cabinet and the range; and
( 2 ) The microwave oven is equivalent in fire protection to the metal range hood required by paragraph (a) of this section; and
( 3 ) The microwave oven is certified to be in conformance with Microwave Cooking Appliances, UL 923-2002 (incorporated by reference, see § 3280.4).
( d ) When a manufactured home is designed for the future installation of a cooking range, the metal hood and cabinet protection required by paragraph (a) of this section and the wall-surfacing protection behind the range required by § 3280.203 shall be installed in the factory.
( e ) Vertical clearance above cooking top. Ranges shall have a vertical clearance above the cooking top of not less than 24 inches to the bottom of combustible cabinets.
[49 FR 32008, Aug. 9, 1984, as amended at 78 FR 73982, Dec. 9, 2013]
(March 8, 1978)

#### In the Matter of Ugo Checchi, Respondent, v Filomena Fallacaro, as Village Clerk of the Village of North Tarrytown, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding to declare invalid a certificate of nomination purporting to designate appellants Cavalieri, Malandrino and Timmings as candidates of the Conservative Party for Village Trustee of the Village of North Tarry-town in the general village election to be held on March 21, 1978, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 7, 1978, which, *inter alia,*granted the application and declared the certificate of nomination invalid on the ground that notice of the Conservative Party caucus for the Village of North Tarrytown had not been published as required by the Election Law. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

______________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 8, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 127718(51(54) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, CHERYCE GREENE, as Personal Justices 

Representative of the Estate of

Keimer Easley, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 127718 
 v COA: 249113 
 Wayne CC: 01-125094-NP

A.P. PRODUCTS, LTD., and REVLON

CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SUPER 7 BEAUTY SUPPLY, INC., 

f/k/a PRO CARE BEAUTY SERVICE, 

INC, f/k/a PRO CARE BEAUTY

SUPPLY, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

RAANI CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

 On order of the Chief Justice, motions by defendants-appellant and by 

plaintiff-appellee for extension of time for filing their briefs on appeal are considered and 

they are GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 8, 2006 

Clerk
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Joe Ferrone, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,602.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001058416
<NAME> ORBCOMM CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          99<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Represents additional paid-in Capital.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection
with the Amended Annual Report of FalconTarget, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Serge Atlan, Chairman of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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





|Dated: August 17, 2009 | /s/ SERGE ATLAN
|---------------------- | ---------------
|                       | By: Serge Atlan
|                       | Its: Chairman  



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to FalconTarget, Inc. and will be retained by FalconTarget, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0347 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MATTHEW RYAN AILER, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

FILED 

JUN 0 5 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Pursuant to Appellant Matthew Ryan Ailer's sixth motion for extension to of time to 

file his reply brief and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until June 21, 2023, to file his reply 

brief. 

No further exterV will be granted. 

DATED this day ofJune, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

06/05/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0347
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3117 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass articles of lead crystal. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass articles 

of lead crystal. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN GLASS ARTICLES OF LEAD CRYSTAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.09.53 Glass articles of lead crystal 

valued over $5 each, whether 

or not put up in sets, put up 

for mail order retail sale, 

and each weighing not over 

1.36 kg together with their 

retail packaging (provided 

for in subheading 

7013.91.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 3117 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §2502. Adjudications as to suspended entries; approval

Every such adjudication shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and shall operate only to divest the United States of the title to the land embraced thereby, without prejudice to the rights of conflicting claimants.

(R.S. §2451; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, §1, 19 Stat. 244; Sept. 20, 1922, ch. 350, 42 Stat. 858.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1162 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

R.S. §2451 derived from acts Aug. 3, 1846, ch. 78, §1, 9 Stat. 51; Feb. 27, 1877. ch. 69, §1, 19 Stat. 244.
#### George Barrett, appellant, v. The Farmer’s Grain, Live Stock and Coal Association, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,198.

Claim for corn sold and delivered. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Stevens R. Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed September 7, 1923.

Edward J. Riley and Barnes, Magoon & Black, for appellant. Orman Ridgely, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.