alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Knipe, Jr., an Infant, Respondent, v. George J. Hettrick, Appellant.

— -Motion granted, order dismissing appe'al vacated, case added to the calendar for the January 1961 Term of court.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50283

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIME QUIRINO-MARTINEZ, also known

as Jaime Perez-Martinez, also known

as Roberto Omar Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-430-ALL

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Jaime Quirino-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Quirino contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been
No. 03-50283

-2-

alleged in his indictment. Quirino maintains that he pleaded

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for

that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Quirino acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
2129.170 Policy. ( a ) OPM shall consider taxes as a FEGLI Program cost under 2131.205-41.
( b ) For purposes of the limited cost redetermination of a FEGLI Program contract, taxes are not limited to those in effect as of the contract date, but shall include any taxes enacted, modified, or repealed, by legislative, judicial, or administrative means, during the contract year.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I,Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended January 25, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and

 

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

 
| Dated:  March 10, 2008 |   |   |   |   |   |   | /s/   Raymond  F. Lancy     |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |   |   |   |   |   | Raymond  F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer |
|                        |   |   |   |   |   |   | (Principal  Financial Officer)             |

 

----
Order filed January 4, 202 2

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00472

- CV

____________ CURTIS TYLER , Appellant

V.

TORCSILL FOUNDATIONS LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. 2020

- 07582



### ORDER
The notice of appeal in this case was filed August 16, 2021 . The clerk responsible for preparing the record notified this court that appellant has not made payment for the record. No evidence that appellant has established indigence h as been filed

. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. On November 15, 2021, this court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a response with proof of payment for the record. No response was filed. On December 14, 2021, appell ant w as ordered to demonstrate to this court that appellant has made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record on or before Decemb er 29, 2021

. SeeTex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). A ppellant was informed that if he fail ed to do so, the

appeal will be dismiss ed. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On December 29, 2021, appellant filed a response demonstrating that

pa y ment arrangements have been made for the reporter ’ s record. Th e response does not reflect paym ent arrangements have been made for the clerk ’ s record.

Therefo re, the court issue s the following order.
Appellant is ordered to demonstrate to this court that appellant has made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record on or before January 14 , 202 2

. See Tex.
R. App. P. 35.3(c). If appellant fails to do so, the appe al will be dismiss ed. See
Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Jus tices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant

.
§ 552.36 Rights-of-entry for construction. ( a ) *When authorized.* Rights-of-entry for construction will be obtained by the district engineer only after a real estate directive or authorization to lease has been issued and then only when the construction schedule does not allow sufficient time to complete negotiations for an option to purchase or for a lease, as appropriate.
( b ) *Involuntary.* Where a right-of-entry for construction cannot be negotiated, under the circumstances set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, a right-of-entry will be obtained through the institution of proceedings for the condemnation of fee title, an easement interest, or a leasehold interest, as appropriate.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129347 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129347 

 COA: 252524 

Oakland CC: 03-007909-AR 

RONNIE PRATT MONCRIEF, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 2, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0120 

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. 

January 27, 2006 

Clerk
#### 1532.006 Reduction or suspension of contract payments upon finding of fraud.
#### 1852.211-70 Packaging, handling, and transportation.

As prescribed in 1811.404-70, insert the following clause:

# Packaging, Handling, and Transportation (SEP 2005)

(a) The Contractor shall comply with NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 6000.1, “Requirements for Packaging, Handling, and Transportation for Aeronautical and Space Systems, Equipment, and Associated Components”, as may be supplemented by the statement of work or specifications of this contract, for all items designated as Class I, II, or III.

(b) The Contractor's packaging, handling, and transportation procedures may be used, in whole or in part, subject to the written approval of the Contracting Officer, provided (1) the Contractor's procedures are not in conflict with any requirements of this contract, and (2) the requirements of this contract shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the Contractor's procedures.

(c) The Contractor must place the requirements of this clause in all subcontracts for items that will become components of deliverable Class I, II, or III items.

(End of clause)

[65 FR 37062, June 13, 2000, as amended at 70 FR 52941, Sept. 6, 2005]
**Teacher Preparation Programs Negotiating Committee**

**2012**

**List of Negotiators**

**[01/26/2012]**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PAYLOCITY HOLDING §

CORPORATION, § No. 46, 2017

§

Defendant Below, § Court Below—Court of Chancery of 

Appellant, § the State of Delaware

§

v. § C.A. No. 12299

§

JOHN SOLAK, on behalf of himself §

and all other similarly situated § 

stockholders of PAYLOCITY § 

HOLDING CORPORATION, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: January 26, 2017

Decided: January 30, 2017

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 30th day of January 2017, having considered the defendant/appellant’s 

notice and supplemental notice of appeal from interlocutory order under Supreme 

Court Rule 42, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On May 5, 2016, the plaintiff/appellee, John Solak (“Solak”), filed a 

verified class action complaint against defendant/appellant, Paylocity Holding 

Corporation (“Paylocity”), and individual members of Paylocity’s board of 

directors (“the Board”). Solak is a stockholder of Paylocity. 
2

(2) Solak’s three-count complaint alleged that Paylocity and the Board 

had adopted a fee-shifting bylaw in violation of Sections 109(b) and 102(b)(6) of 

the Delaware General Corporation Law. Counts I and II of Solak’s complaint 

sought a declaration that the bylaw was invalid; Count III claimed that the Board 

members had breached their fiduciary duties.

(3) Paylocity and the Board moved to dismiss the complaint. In an 

opinion issued on December 27, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in 

part and dismissed Counts II and III of the complaint.1 The court denied the 

motion to dismiss Count I.2

(4) Paylocity filed an application for certification of an interlocutory 

appeal from the December 27 decision. Solak opposed the application. By order 

dated January 26, 2017, the Court of Chancery denied the application after 

determining that certification of an interlocutory appeal was not warranted under 

the principles and criteria of Rule 42(b).

(5) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 

discretion of the Court. In this case, the Court agrees with the Court of Chancery’s 

January 26, 2017 order denying the application for certification. Rule 42(b)’s

principles and criteria do not weigh in favor of interlocutory review of the 

December 27, 2016 opinion.

 

1

Solak v. Sarowitz, ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 7976089 (Del. Chan. Ct. Dec. 27, 2016). 

2

Id.
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 

appeal is REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### 1036.602-5 Short selection process for contracts not to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

Bureaus are authorized to use either process.
1812.7000 Anchor tenancy contracts. ( a ) The term “anchor tenancy” means an arrangement in which the United States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made viable.
( b ) Subject to receiving an appropriation that: ( 1 ) Authorizes a multi-year anchor tenancy contract; and
( 2 ) Specifies the commercial space product or service to be developed or used, NASA may enter into a multi-year anchor tenancy contract only if Administrator determines— ( i ) The good or service meets the mission requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
( ii ) The commercially procured good or service is cost effective;
( iii ) The good or service is procured through a competitive process;
( iv ) Existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the United States Government have been specifically identified;
( v ) The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued Government market or other nonreimbursable Government support; and
( vi ) Private capital is at risk in the venture.
( c ) Contracts entered into under such authority may provide for the payment of termination liability in the event that the Government terminates such contracts for its convenience. ( 1 ) Contracts that provide for this payment of termination liability shall include a fixed schedule of such termination liability payments. Liability under such contracts shall not exceed the total payments which the Government would have made after the date of termination to purchase the good or service if the contract were not terminated.
( 2 ) Subject to appropriations, funds available for such termination liability payments may be used for purchase of the good or service upon successful delivery of the good or service pursuant to the contract. In such case, sufficient funds shall remain available to cover any remaining termination liability.
( d ) *Limitations.* ( 1 ) Contracts entered into under such authority shall not exceed 10 years in duration.
( 2 ) Such contracts shall provide for delivery of the good or service on a firm, fixed price basis.
( 3 ) To the extent practicable, reasonable performance specifications shall be used to define technical requirements in such contracts.
( 4 ) In any such contract, the Administrator shall reserve the right to completely or partially terminate the contract without payment of such termination liability because of the contractor's actual or anticipated failure to perform its contractual obligations.
[77 FR 65497, Oct. 29, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 36721, June 26, 2015]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Colwell, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 2, 1963, which dismissed the writ after a hearing and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed, without costs *(People ex rel. Sullivan*v. *Fay,*16 A D 2d 823; *People*v. *Muller,*11 N Y 2d 154). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
* 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. 95-30797 Conference Calendar

__________________ KENNETH JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ORLEANS INDIGENT DEFENDERS PROGRAM; ANNE TURISSINI, Attorney, Orleans Indigent Defenders Program; WAYNE FONTENELLE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1141-S

- - - - - - - - - - (October 19, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Johnson requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the defendants accorded him ineffective representation, in contravention of his constitutional rights, which allegedly resulted in his unconstitutional imprisonment.No. 95-30797 -2- To proceed IFP on appeal, a movant must show that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Johnson's poverty is not in question. In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas under § 2254. Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Otherwise, such a claim for damages is not cognizable under § 1983 and must be dismissed. Id

. Johnson has not even alleged, let alone made the requisite showing to satisfy the Heckstandard. His claim is thus not cognizable under § 1983. The district court's dismissal of Johnson's complaint was proper. Heck , 114 S. Ct. at 2372. This appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Johnson that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Johnson is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING GIVEN.
211.170 Use of proprietary specifications or standards. A justification and approval is required to use proprietary specifications and standards— ( 1 ) When using sealed bidding or negotiated acquisition procedures (see 206.302-1(S-70) for justification requirements); or
( 2 ) When using the simplified procedures for certain commercial products or commercial services at FAR 13.5 (see 213.501(a)(ii) for justification requirements).
[84 FR 25192, May 31, 2019, as amended at 88 FR 6581, Jan. 31, 2023]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated March 31, 2005, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of
Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the
Registration Statements of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File Nos.
333-92210, 333-39330, 333-37786, File No. 333-52030, File No. 333-95413 and File
Nos. 333-64904) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-10626, File No. 33-41134, File No.
333-45646 and 333-75136).


                                               /s/  Grant Thornton LLP
                                               -----------------------

Dallas, Texas
March 31, 2005
1815.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. (NASA supplements paragraph (a)) ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert FAR 52.215-1 in all competitive negotiated solicitations.
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 Quarterly Report of Oxygen Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris J. Stern, Chief Executive 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; and




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




Date: March 21, 2011
By:
/s/ Chris J. SternChris J. Stern(Chief  Executive Officer)




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
- '09242092 Complaint' of '24-00447-F San Francisco'
- '09242092 Recipient Notification Letter' of '24-00447-F San Francisco'
EXHIBIT
24.2





POWER OF
ATTORNEY




Each
person whose signature appears below, hereby authorizes and appoints Geoffrey
Talbot as his attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, to sign and file on his behalf individually and in each such
capacity stated, below, the Annual Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. on Form
10-K for the year ending March 31, 2009, and any amendments thereto to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, The NASDAQ Stock Market or similar
body, and otherwise, as fully as such person could do in person, hereby
verifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their or his
substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.




Signatures
                              
                              Title
                              
                              Date/s/ Geoffrey
      P. Talbot /s/
                              
                              Chairman,
      CEO, President and Chief
                              
                              August
      19, 2009GEOFFREY
      P. TALBOT
                              
                              Financial
      Officer/s/ Peter
      J. Upfold /s/
                              
                              Vice
      Chairman, CTO and
                              
                              August
      19,
      2009PETER
      J. UPFOLD
                              
                              Treasurer/Secretary/s/ Leonard Silverman/s/
                              
                              Director
                              
                              August
      19, 2009LEONARD
      SILVERMAN, Ph.D./s/ Robert B. Fields/s/
                              
                              Director
                              
                              August
      19, 2009ROBERT
      B. FIELDS
§ 776.51 Dealing with an unrepresented person. ( a ) When dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a covered attorney shall not state or imply that the covered attorney is disinterested. When the covered attorney knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the covered attorney's role in the matter, the covered attorney shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.
( b ) [Reserved]