alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30083

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

WARREN S. MURPHY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. FOTI, Sheriff,

Orleans Parish, JOHN LACOUR,

Warden, and WILLIAM SHORT,

Warden,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-94-3177-I-4

- - - - - - - - - -

June 29, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Warren S. Murphy's motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) is hereby DENIED. Murphy appeals the entry of

judgment for the defendants in his civil rights action.

Use of restraining devices by prison officials

"constitute[s] a rational security measure and cannot be

considered cruel and unusual punishment unless great discomfort

is occasioned deliberately as punishment or mindlessly, with
No. 95-30083

-2-

indifference to the prisoner's humanity." Jackson v. Cain, 864

F.2d 1235, 1243 (5th Cir. 1989). This court recognizes that

shackles and restraints are justified by escape risks. Id. at

1243-44; Fulford v. King, 692 F.2d 11, 14 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Additionally, "the Eighth Amendment does not require `that the

state use the best means available for confining its prisoners.'" 

Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1243 (quoting Fulford, 692 F.2d at 14 n.7).

Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) officials legitimately

determined that Murphy posed a risk of escape. They were

justified in using shackles to restrain Murphy. The magistrate

judge found that the shackles did not prohibit Murphy from moving

about his cell. Murphy does not challenge the magistrate judge's

findings. Under the circumstances, the use of shackles did not

constitute mindless imposition of punishment. Nor did it

demonstrate indifference to Murphy's humanity. See Jackson, 864

F.2d at 1243. Whether OPP officials could have used leather

restraints rather than leg irons is irrelevant. They need not

have used the most comfortable or least restrictive means

available. Id. Because Murphy raises no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal, his appeal is

DISMISSED.
### §475. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title VIII, §870, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1175

Section, acts May 3, 1924, ch. 149, §1, 43 Stat. 115; Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 337, §5, 44 Stat. 1373; Aug. 8, 1946, ch. 909, 60 Stat. 940; May 29, 1958, Pub. L. 85–430, §2, 72 Stat. 149; June 30, 1972, Pub. L. 92–331, §1, 86 Stat. 400, directed Secretary of Agriculture to issue cotton crop reports at certain times during growing and harvesting season.
EX PARTE ROSALI BONILLA

STATE OF TEXAS

7^/S^'°3

CAUSE NO.1056657-B

IN THE 179 Th DISTRICT

§

COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY

MOTION TO COMPEL

TEXftECEiVEi

§0W@$ CRIMINAL APPEALS

*"* 06 2015

TO: THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT,

NOW' COMES ROSALIBONILLA,PRO SE,and humbly ask this Honorable

Courtof Criminal Appeals to compel the District Court of Harris

County,Texas,to answer Bonilla's letter and to take action on

his case-, cause number mention above. In support of this motion

Bonilla submits the following,

On Feb.11,2015,the state ' s -proposed, order designating issues

stating that the following issues need to be resolved in the

present case:

1. whether the applicant was denied effective assistance of

trial counsel,

2.whether the applicant was denied a fair trial due to prosecu

torial misconduct.

Therefore,pursuant to Article 11.07 §3(d),this Court will resol

ve the above-cited issues and then enter finding of fact. So far,

I haven't heard any action taken by the Harris County;Courthouse

concerning my case.

I have sent several letters seeking information concerning my

case,so far no answer. I- haven't received any answer or informat

ion on this subject.

I humbly ask this Honorable Court to compel the District Court

of Harris County to answer my letters and to take the action ne

cessary to resolve my case.

SINCERELY SUBMITTED,

__?_/_3__/2015 /s/ OwAPRO SE
~~~ 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W 12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Southern Air, Inc. requests an exemption from § 121.689(a)(6) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

Section 121.689 prescribes in pertinent part, that the flight release form for supplemental operations must list the 

minimum fuel supply in gallons or pounds. We request that the exemption allow Southern Air to provide the 

minimum fuel supply on the flight release in kilograms. 

Southern Air operates aircraft which use kilograms as the unit of ineasure for the aircraft fuel gauges and weight and 

balance system. The Southern Air flight planning system has the capability to create the flight plan and flight release 

in kilograms. By providing the minimum fuel supply on the flight release form in kilograms, all fuel data related to a 

flight will be in the same unit of ineasurement. Doing so will mitigate the risk of using an improper fuel load. In 

addition, the granting of this exemption will allow Southern Air to support its statutory duty as an air carrier to 

provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. 

The aircraft fuel system, weight and balance system and all fueling operations are all done in kilograms. To require 

fuel information in pounds on the release opens up the possibility for introducing erroneous information into the 

system. This creates additional risk of an aircraft taking off with the incorrect fuel load. By using kilograms when 

listing the minimum fuel supply on the flight release, this critical information will match the unit of ineasure 

displayed in the aircraft and on all of the weight and balance information. This process mitigates risk and enhances 

safety. 

By way of additional information, similar requests for exemption have been granted, Exemption 10273, FAA 

Docket No. FAA-2011-0196, to Florida West International Airways, Inc. and Exemption 10368, FAA Docket No. 

FAA-2011-1001, to Atlas Air. 

Southern Air respectfully requests a similar grant subject to the same conditions and limitations. We also request 

that a finding of good cause be considered since the requested exemption would not set a precedent. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Respe.Ofallly 

Donald J. Os son— ~ 

Vice President of Flight Operations 

Southern Air, Inc. 

7310 Turfway Rd. Suite 400 

Florence, KY 41042 

dosmundson@southernair.com 

7310 Turfway Rd. Suite 400 • Florence, Kentucky 4 2042 • USA • Phone: +1.859.$68.9200 • Fax: +i. 859-495•o6go 

www.southernair.com
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


In
connection with the Composite Technology Corporation (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Benton
H Wilcoxon, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, as amended, 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/ Benton H WilcoxonBenton
      H WilcoxonChief
      Executive Officer(Principal Executive
Officer)





Date :May 29,
2009
Order filed June 23, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00029-CV

____________

ERIC BRANDON ROSENBERG, Appellant

V.

SUSAN EVELYN ENGELKING, Appellee

On Appeal from the 201st District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-FM-11-000804

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due May 27, 2015. No brief or motion for extension of 

time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before July 8, 2015, the 

court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
### §3504. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title I, §101(f), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3281

Section, Pub. L. 95–460, §5, Oct. 14, 1978, 92 Stat. 1265; Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1012(g), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 712, provided for reports to Congress and the President.
Letter Agreement dated October 31, 2005



 Exhibit 10.36 
 October 31, 2005 
 Mr. David Grin 
 Laurus
Master Fund, Ltd. 
 c/o Laurus Capital Management, LLC 
 825
Third Avenue 14th Fl. 
 New York, NY 10022 
  

	RE:	Exercise Price of Laurus Warrants 

 Dear Mr. Grin:

 On October 31, 2005, we closed the sale of the following securities to institutional investors: (i) 14,925,743 shares of the
Company’s common stock, plus (ii) five-year, non-callable warrants to purchase another 5,970,297 shares of common stock with an exercise price of $1.20 per share (the “Offering”). The aggregate purchase price for the
securities sold in the Offering was $1.01 per share of common stock initially being sold or $15,075,000. In conjunction therewith, we have repaid all indebtedness (including interest, prepayment fees and other fees) to Laurus and agree that
the Exercise Price (as defined in the warrants) of the warrants owned by Laurus Master Fund, Ltd. reset as follows: 
  

													
	 Warrant Owner
	  	Issue
Year	  	Expiration
Year	  	 Underlying
 Shares
	  	Exercise Price
	  	  	  	  	Old	  	New
	 Laurus Master Fund, Ltd
	  	2003	  	2010	  	200,000	  	$	2.25	  	$	1.92
	 Laurus Master Fund, Ltd
	  	2003	  	2010	  	200,000	  	$	2.44	  	$	2.07
	 Laurus Master Fund, Ltd
	  	2003	  	2010	  	150,000	  	$	2.82	  	$	2.35
	 Laurus Master Fund, Ltd
	  	2004	  	2011	  	125,000	  	$	3.11	  	$	2.57
	 Laurus Master Fund, Ltd
	  	2004	  	2011	  	400,000	  	$	1.25	  	$	1.18
		  		  		  	 	  			  		
		  		  		  	1,075,000	  			  		

 Sincerely, 
  

			
	TRANSGENOMIC, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael A. Summers

		 	Michael A. Summers
		 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	 Agreed and accepted on the date hereof
  
 LAURUS MASTER FUND, LTD.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ David Grin

		 	David Grin
		 	Director
### §1929–1. Level of loan programs under Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund

On and after October 28, 1991, no funds in this Act or any other Act shall be available to carry out loan programs under the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund at levels other than those provided for in advance in appropriations Acts.

(Pub. L. 102–142, title III, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 899.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1992, and not as part of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act which comprises this chapter.
# **Exhibit99.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

      Pursuant toSection 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and InvestorProtection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted),Gene W. Ray, the Chief Executive Officer of The Titan Corporation(the “Company”), and Mark W. Sopp, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

**1.**      TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2002, to which this Certification is attached asExhibit 99.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

**2.**      Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results ofoperations of the Company for the period covered by the PeriodicReport.

Dated:  November 14, 2002

| /s/ GENE W. RAY               |           | /s/ MARK W. SOPP |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                                    |                                                        |
| Gene W.Ray Chief Executive Officer | Mark W.Sopp** Chief Financial Officer                  |
# 2020 President's Budget

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	September 3, 2015, 3:56 PM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 7, 2015, 6:40 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 17, 2015, 10:16 AM

&"-,Regular"&10DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET&8(in thousands of dollars)	&"-,Regular"&10 4/23/2020

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&P

X0A0T

X0A1T

X0A3T

X0A5T

X0A6T
http://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.urihttp://invalid.uri
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 15, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00281

- CV

Meritage Homes of Texas, LLC , Appellant

v.

Sophie Pouye and Cheikh Toure , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

B EFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the int erlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on June 2, 2021

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s interlocutory order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial co urt’s interlocutory

order

. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the

court below.
### §4914. Amendment procedure

#### (a) In general

Before a plan issued by the Secretary under this chapter may be amended, the Secretary shall publish the proposed amendments for public comment and conduct a referendum in accordance with section 4912 of this title.

#### (b) Separate consideration of amendments

#### (1) In general

The amendments described in paragraph (2) that are required to be made by the Secretary to a plan as a result of the amendments made by the Watermelon Research and Promotion Improvement Act of 1993 shall be subject to separate line item voting and approval in a referendum conducted pursuant to section 4912 of this title before the Secretary alters the plan as in effect on the day before December 14, 1993.

#### (2) Amendments

The amendments referred to in paragraph (1) are the amendments to a plan required under—

(A) section 7 of the Watermelon Research and Promotion Improvement Act of 1993 relating to the elimination of the assessment refund; and

(B) section 8 of such Act relating to subjecting importers to the terms and conditions of the plan.

#### (3) Importers

When conducting the referendum relating to subjecting importers to the terms and conditions of a plan, the Secretary shall include as eligible voters in the referendum producers, handlers, and importers who would be subject to the plan if the amendments to a plan were approved.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1655, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1630; Pub. L. 103–189, §10, Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2264.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Watermelon Research and Promotion Improvement Act of 1993, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), (2), is Pub. L. 103–189, Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2259, which amended this section and sections 4901 to 4904, 4906, 4908, and 4911 to 4913 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 4901 of this title. Section 7 of the Act amended section 4906 of this title. Section 8 of the Act amended sections 4901 to 4904, 4906, 4908, and 4911 to 4913 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1993 Amendment note set out under section 4901 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–189 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "The provisions of this chapter applicable to plans shall be applicable to amendments to plans."
(October 8, 1963)

#### Werner Ek Building Corp. v. Melrose Lumber Company, Inc.

Motion for resettlement granted and the order of this court entered on June 25, 1963 *[ante,*p. 612] is resettled to read as follows: “ It is ordered that the order so appealed from be, and the same hereby is, modified on the law to the extent of granting, with $10 costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and severing the cause of action alleged in the counterclaim and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, with costs. Submit resettled order.” Concur — Rabin, J. p., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
### §2275. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1572(3), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3702

Section, Pub. L. 99–198, title XI, §1151, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1497, provided for trade consultation between the Foreign Agricultural Service and other Federal agencies. See section 5674 of this title.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6686** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARJIL LEE BERGARA, a/k/a Michael Bergara, a/k/a Michael Begera , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00053

- JPJ

- 1; 1:12

- cv - 80429

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN , AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marjil Lee Bergara, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Marjil Lee Bergara seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his self

- styled motion s for judicial notice and a w r it of error coram nobis together as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this s tandard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 8 5. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bergara has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Typographical Errors in Federal Register Document EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700; 

FRL-9771-5, Approval and Promulgation oflmplementation Plans; Kentucky; 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

FROM: Nacosta C. Ward~ Regulatory Development Section 

TO: File and Docket EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700 

This memorandum is to document the following typographical errors in the Federal Register 

Document EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700; FRL-9771-5, Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 11 0( a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, published January 17,2013: 

Page: 3870 

Column: 3 

Paragraph: 2 

Erroneous Text: 

"On May 25,2012, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted its plan to EPA, which also 

included the Louisville-Jefferson County local monitoring program. On June 29, 2012, EPA 

approved the Commonwealth's monitoring network plan." 

The correct text should read as follows: 

"On June 29, 2012, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted its plan to EPA, which also 

included the Louisville-Jefferson County local monitoring program. On October 11, 2012, EPA 

approved the Commonwealth's monitoring network plan." 

The October 11, 2012, monitoring network plan approval letter for the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky is included in the docket for this rulemaking. It can be found at www.regulations.gov 

using Document ID: EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700-0005. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wrth Vegetable Or! Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mrnrmum 30% Postconsumer)
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

I, Brian D. Fitzgerald, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed the amendment to the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Security Capital Corporation; and

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this amendment doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

 
| Date:   April  28, 2006 |   | /s/ Brian D. Fitzgerald                                           |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   | Brian  D. Fitzgerald                                              |
|                                   |   | Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                        |        |                                                                   |        |  |

 

----
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** OMB circular A-133 compliance supplement

2006,2007,2008,2009, 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017

 
SuDoc:PREX 2.4/2:
Item Number:0854-D-01 (online)
CGP system Number:000865151