alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40236

Summary Calendar

 

SHANE EDWARD BISHOP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DOUG LEE, Denton County Detention Officer;

JEFF HENSLEY, Denton County Detention Officer;

DALE BOOKER, Denton County Detention Officer; 

JERRY FLOWERS, Denton County Detention Officer;

J. R. TORRES; DEE DEE WILSON; JEFF COATS; MIKE 

YERIK; and CALVIN TIPTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-98)

____________________________________________________________

October 14, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shane Edward Bishop, a Texas prisoner (#658145), appeals the

orders of the district court and magistrate judge granting the

defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. 

Bishop brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
2

that defendants violated his constitutional rights when they used

excessive force in transferring him from his cell to “the rubber

room.” We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s

findings and order addressing defendant Lee’s summary judgment

motion, and the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the

remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. Because we

find no reversible error, we affirm for essentially the reasons

stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court

in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and stated by the

magistrate judge in granting Lee’s motion for summary judgment. 

We recognize Bishop’s contention that summary judgment was

inappropriate because defendants had not produced several

photographs of his alleged injuries or an unedited version of the

videotape submitted in support of the motion for summary

judgment. However, despite Bishop’s argument in his response to

the motion for summary judgment that the videotape had undergone

edits “that even a child could see,” he offered no specific

facts indicating what had been omitted. A review of the tape

discloses no discernable editing during the portion relevant to

this appeal, which portion does not show that any of the

defendants violated Bishop’s constitutional rights.

Bishop also argues that the district court and magistrate

judge erred in denying his motions to amend his complaint and

motion for appointment of counsel, that he was treated improperly

at a management conference when he was allegedly “pushed” into
3

consenting to the magistrate judge’s presiding over the case,

that the court did not afford his pro se pleadings liberal

construction, and that his lawsuit was improperly dismissed “with

prejudice.” These claims are unavailing.

Bishop’s “Motion for Relief” is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
§ 221.2 Applicability. This part applies to: ( a ) The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the Coast Guard at all times, including when it is a Service in the Department of Homeland Security, by agreement with that Department), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).
( b ) The Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), under agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under agreement with the Department of Commerce.
### Part D—Lamb Reporting
October 30, 2014

Memo to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0322 Subject: Calls to Commenters Concerning Exte nding the Comment Period for SIPs: Supplemental Proposal to address Affirmative Defense Provisions in States Including in the Petition for Rulemaking and in Additional States

On this day I either spoke with or left voicema ils with the following commenters who had requested an extension to the comment period on the proposal. I informed each commenter that the after considering their request along with other requests for an extension the EPA would not be granting any extensions to the comment deadline of Nove mber 6, 2014. The commenters called were:

Name Organization Method on Contact Robert Brown South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 10:33 AM

John Fainter Association of Electric Companies of Texas, Inc Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 10:38 AM Pamela Faggert Dominion Resource Se rvices, Inc Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 10:46 AM Richard Hyde Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Phone Conversation on 10/30/2014 @ 10:50 AM Zachary Craft Baker and Botts, LLP Phone Conversation on 10/30/2014 @ 10:57 AM Lauren Freeman Hutton and Williams Voicemail left on 10/30/2014 @ 11:05 AM

Thomas Coda /s/ EPA/OAQPS/AQPD/SLPG
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, David C. Swanson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of R.H.Donnelley Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a.)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls or procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; b.)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; c.)  disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming equivalent functions):
a.)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and b.)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 9, 2004 By:  /s/ David C. Swanson    David C. Swanson    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  
72
H. Res. 1293 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 12, 2024. 

Resolved, That Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, 

U.S. Department of Justice, shall be found to be in contempt 

of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena. 

Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194, 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 

report of the Oversight Committee, detailing the refusal of 

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, U.S. Department of 

Justice, to produce documents, records, and materials to the 

Oversight Committee as directed by subpoena, to the United 

States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that 

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland be proceeded against in 

the manner and form provided by law. 
2 

•HRES 1293 EH 

Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 

take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the period September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         14,951,933
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,983,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (310,000)
<INVENTORY>                                       600,379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,535,518
<PP&E>                                         27,562,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,979,868)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,285,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,234,995
<BONDS>                                         2,393,991
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          134,938
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,664,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,285,972
<SALES>                                         1,870,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,580,072
<CGS>                                           2,350,697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,637,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,025,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 98,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,745,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,745,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,745,140)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.28)



</TABLE>
August 14, 2015

Mr. Floyd Fishel and Mr. C ooper Dunn

OP Media, LLC

2221 Peachtree Road, NE

, S ui te D Box 412

Atlanta, GA 30309

Dear M ess r s

. Fishel and Dunn :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21; § § 45.23(b)

, 61.113(a) and (b)

, 91.7(a)

, 91.9(b)(2)

, 91.103

, 91.109

, 91.119

, 91.121

, 91.151(a)

, 91.203(a) and (b)

, 91.405(a)

, 91.407(a)(1)

, 91.409(a)(2)

, and 91.417(a) and (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of OP Media, LLC into the public docket

(No. FAA− 2015

− 1900 ) on May 26, 2015 , but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any fu rther, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-59100, 333-69389, 333-72622, 333-72624 and 333-120485) of
Handleman Company of our report dated June 28, 2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                          
|--------------------------
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|Detroit, Michigan         
|June 28, 2005
EXHIBIT 10.51


Resolution of the Board of Directors dated May 12, 1998:


                       SEVERANCE PLAN EXTENSION RESOLUTION

RESOLVED, that the Severance Pay Plan for Eligible Employees of Michael Foods,
Inc. and its subsidiaries (the "Severance Plan"), as approved and implemented in
accordance with the directives of the Board of Directors on July 26, 1990 and
extended through July 1, 1998, be hereby extended for a period of one additional
year to a new Termination Date of July 1, 1999.

            Number of employees covered under the Severance Plan
                       from July 1, 1997 to July 1, 1998.....................17

            Employee added:
                       Ronald W. Bergman - Michael Foods, Inc.

            Employee deleted:
                      James D. Clarkson - Northern Star Co. (under contract now)

            Number of employees covered under the Severance Plan
                      from July 1, 1998 to July 1, 1999......................17
EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Randall W. White certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Educational Development Corporation. 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 presentedin this quarterly report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the quarterly period ended November 30, 2004 that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internalcontrol over financial reporting; 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date January 14, 2005       By      /s/ Randall W. White                     Randall W. White        President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification of the

Chief Financial Officer



I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/s/ Michael SmithMichael SmithAugust 12, 2005
# United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1478

___________ Jewell Miller, Opal Miller, * * Plaintiffs/Appellees, * * Jewell Miller Trust, Trustees, * Betty Ann Wooten and Carrie * Simmons, * * Intervenor/Plaintiffs,* * v. * * Betty Ann Wooten, Carrie * Simmons, * * Defendants/Appellants,* * William Johnson, * * Defendant. *

___________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the No. 96-1805 Western District of Arkansas.

___________ [UNPUBLISHED] Jewell Miller, Opal Miller, * * Plaintiffs/Appellants,* * Jewell Miller Trust, Trustees, * Betty Ann Wooten and Carrie * Simmons, * * Intervenor/Plaintiffs,* * v. * * Betty Ann Wooten, Carrie * Simmons, William Johnson, * * Defendants/Appellees. *

___________

### The HONORABLE JOHN R. TUNHEIM, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge 2 

### for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- Submitted: December 12, 1996 Filed: March 18, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District 1 Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. In accordance with a thorough, compr ehensive memorandum opinion, the district court entered a judgment setting aside a trust into which th e 2 substa ntial assets belonging to the appellees, two elderly sisters, ha d been placed and ordering the appellants, distant cousins of the appellees, to return the property to the appellees. The judgment also awarde d compen satoryand punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, as well a s appointing a receiver/commissioner to collect and preserve the assets. In additi on, the judgment dismissed the appellees’ claim based upon th e Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961. It is from this portion of the judgment that the appellees have filed a cross

appeal. Although the appeal and cross-appeal present some interesting i ssues, we conclude that beca use of the fact-bound nature of the case an extended opinion would have noprecedential value. Suffice it to say that we find no clearly erroneous findings of fact nor any er ror of law in the district cou rt’s decision, and thus we affirm the judgment on the basis of th e district court’s memorandum

### -3-

opinion. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 234.3 Admission to property. ( a ) Access to the Pentagon Reservation or facilities thereon shall be restricted in accordance with AI Number 30[1] and other applicable Department of Defense rules and regulations in order to ensure the orderly and secure conduct of Department of Defense business. Admission to facilities or restricted areas shall be limited to employees and other persons with proper authorization. Forward written requests for copies of the document to Washington Headquarters Services, Executive Services Division, Freedom of Information Division, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
( b ) All persons entering or upon the Pentagon Reservation shall, when required and/or requested, display identification to authorized persons.
( c ) All packages, briefcases, and other containers brought into, on, or being removed from facilities or restricted areas on the Pentagon Reservation are subject to inspection and search by authorized persons. Persons entering on facilities or restricted areas who refuse to permit an inspection and search will be denied entry.
( d ) Any person or organization desiring to conduct activities anywhere on the Pentagon Reservation shall file an application for permit with the applicable Building Management Office or Installation Commander. Such application shall be made on a form provided by the Department of Defense and shall be submitted in the manner specified by the Department of Defense. Violation of the conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the loss of access to the Pentagon Reservation.
Footnotes -
234.3
[1] Copies may be obtained at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ins2.html .*