alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 26, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50191

Summary Calendar

CHARLES RAYMOND LEE, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIM WILSON, Sheriff Williamson County; GEORGE DECKARD, Jailor

Williamson County Jail,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CV-773

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

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Raymond Lee, Jr., Texas prisoner # 904078, filed a

pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Deckard and Sheriff Jim

Wilson, in their individual and official capacities. After the

district court dismissed Lee’s case on summary judgment, Lee

timely filed a notice of appeal. 

Lee appeals the dismissal of his claims that Deckard

violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force and

denying him medical treatment. This court reviews de novo a
No. 06-50191

-2-

district court’s order granting a party’s summary-judgment

motion. Whittaker v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 206 F.3d 532,

534 (5th Cir. 2000); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

Lee’s excessive force claim was based on his allegation that

he suffered a “busted lip” that bled when Deckard closed a portal

door through which food is passed. Lee further described his lip

injury as the kind that might be incurred in a basketball game,

and he alleged that he suffered headaches as a result of his

injury. Crediting Lee’s allegations as true under the summary

judgment standard, we affirm the dismissal of his excessive force

claim because Lee’s injury was de minimis in the context given

that Deckard’s closing of the portal door was a reasonable

attempt to maintain order in response to Lee’s complaints. See

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); Glenn v. City of

Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Hare v. City

of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (pretrial

detainee case).

Lee also appeals his claim that he was denied medical care

for his injured lip. Given the circumstances, the district court

correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants because

Lee’s injury was de minimis and their conduct was not “‘repugnant

to the conscience of mankind.’” Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530,

534 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059,

1061 (5th Cir. 1997)); see also Hare, 74 F.3d at 639, 648.
No. 06-50191

-3-

Lee has moved for appointment of counsel, arguing that

appointment of counsel is needed in order to obtain records,

interview witnesses, and investigate Lee’s claims. Lee has not

shown exceptional circumstances, and his request for appointment

of counsel is denied. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.

1987).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
§ 1700.28 Electric Program. RUS, through the Electric Program, makes loans and loan guarantees for rural electrification and the furnishing of electric service to persons in rural areas. ( a ) *The Assistant Administrator, Electric Program,* directs and coordinates the rural electrification programs, participating with the Administrator, and others, in planning and formulating the programs and activities of the agency, and performs other activities as the Administrator may prescribe from time to time.
( b ) *Primary point of contact with borrowers.* Two regional divisions, one for the Northern Region and one for the Southern Region, are the primary points of contact between RUS and its electric distribution borrowers. Each office administers the rural electric program for its assigned geographical area through headquarters staff and general field representatives. The Power Supply Division is the primary point of contact between RUS and its electric power supply borrowers.
( c ) *Staff office.* The Electric Staff Division is responsible for engineering aspects of RUS' standards, specifications and other requirements for design, construction, and technical operation and maintenance of RUS borrowers' electric systems. The Electric Staff Division oversees the activities of Technical Standards Committees “A” and “B”, Electric, which determine whether engineering specifications, drawings, material and equipment are acceptable for use in RUS borrowers' electric systems. The Office of the Assistant Administrator prepares analyses of loan making activities and the business and regulatory environment of RUS borrowers and recommends policies and procedures.
[63 FR 16085, Apr. 2, 1998. Redesignated at 71 FR 8436, Feb. 17, 2006]
----

----

|   | 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      Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    | InterAmerican      Gaming, Inc. |                                                                    |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                            |                                                                    |   |
| Date:       February 16, 2010 | By:                             | /s/ John      G. Simmonds                                          |   |
|                               |                            | Name: John      G. Simmonds                                        |   |
|                               |                            | Title:       Principal Executive OfficerCEO, Director and Chairman |   |
|                               |                            |                                                                    |
# UPM C Northwes t A hospita l o f Universit y of Pittsburg h Medical Cente r 

### Adifmiistratio n Jul y 26 , 201 0

Davi d P . Gibbon s Presiden t 10 0 Fairfiel d Driv e Seneca , P

A 1634 6 814-676-714 1 Fax . 814-676-715 1 www.upmo.oo m — t c 5 Mr . Denni s J . DeVane y Chief , Essentia l Servic e Distric t X-5 3 Offic e o f Aviatio n Analytic s U S Dept . o f

Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : SAV E OU RSERVIC E (SOS ) CAMPAIG N Dear Mr . DeVaney : O n behal f o f th e administration , boar dof director s an dphysicia n leadershi p a t UPM C Northwest , I woul dlik e t o shar e wit

hyo u th e importanc e o f

th e commercia l ai r

servic e provide da

t th e Venang o Regiona l Airport

t o no t onl y ou r organization , bu t

ou r entir e community . A s th e sol e hospita l facility i n Venang o County , an damajo r provide r o f healthcar e t o no t

onl y ou r loca l community , bu t

communitie s throughou t th e region , physicia n recruitmen t i s a n essentia l too l t o ou r growthan dsustainability . I n orde r to effectivel y recrui t

physician s fro magloba l market , w e mus t hav e eas y acces s t o ai r

trave l that

allow s physician s an dthei r familie s t o fl

y i n an dou t o f Venang o County efficientl y an deconomically . Recruitmen t

i s onl y th e firs t

ste p i n ou r

ongoin g effort s t o attrac t an dkee p medica l specialist s to ou r rural area—the y the n mus t wan t t o remai n i n ou r

area , an dt o d o that , th e ability t o offe r acces s t o large r metropolitan area s i s vita l t o ou r continue dsuccess . Havin g commercia l ai r

servic e i n ou r

smal l communit y i s agreat asset , an don e that

UPM C Northwes t

canno t affor dt o lose . W e full y suppor t

Optio n 1 whic hinclude s Gulfstrea mInternationa l Airline s operatin g Continenta l Connectio n servic e throug hth e Continenta l Airlines ' Clevelan dhu b that connect s seamlessl y to ove r 6 0 non-sto p destinations . Thi s optio n wil l enabl e th e communit y t o work towar deconomi c recover y b y providin g ai r acces s t o th e nation' s ai r transportatio n system . UPM C Northwes t

i s committe dt o usin g th e loca l ai r servic e provide db y Gulfstrea mInternationa l provide db y th e Clevelan dconnectio n fro mth e Venang o Regiona l Airport wheneve r

possible . Than k yo u for you r consideration . Sincerely , Davi dP . Gibbon s Presiden t
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00172

- CR

Chase Eugene Anderson
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 187th District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2017CR13684

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
February 27, 2020
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1)    | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | (2)    | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as                of the                dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented. |

| Dated:                February 20, 2008                                                                                          |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|  /s/                Yijun Wang                                                                                              |   |   |   |
| Yijun                WangChief                Executive Officer, President, Director(Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Ruiz, Appellant.

[777 NYS2d 193]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J), rendered November 16, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (eight counts) and robbery in the second degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly admitted security videotapes from a certain hospital into evidence to rebut the defendant’s claim that he was at that hospital during the time of the robbery (s*ee People v Patterson,*93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]; *People v*
      *738
      *Ely,*68 NY2d 520 [1986]; *People v McGee,*49 NY2d 48 [1979], *cert denied sub nom. Waters v New York,*446 US 942 [1980]; *People v Fondal,*154 AD2d 476 [1989]; *People v Torres,*136 AD2d 664 [1988]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly admitted the testimony of an arresting police officer who had personal knowledge of the defendant’s appearance as of the time of his arrest that he did not see the defendant on the videotapes, as his testimony served to aid the jury in making an independent assessment as to whether the defendant appeared on the videotapes *(see People v Russell,*79 NY2d 1024 [1992]; *People v Rivera,*259 AD2d 316 [1999]; *People v Morgan,*214 AD2d 809 [1995]).

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court should have compelled the testimony of a defense witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This argument is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the Supreme Court properly accepted the invocation of the privilege by the witness, since testifying would have subjected him to a real possibility of criminal prosecution *(see People v Arroyo,*46 NY2d 928 [1979]; *People v Faulk,*255 AD2d 333 [1998]; *see also Hoffman v United States,*341 US 479, 486-487 [1951]).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Santos,*86 NY2d 869, 870 [1995]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santueci, J.P., S. Miller, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### § 160.90 False, misleading, or deceitful practices.

No label or other means or practice used in connection with the sale of naval stores in commerce or of anything offered as such shall be false, misleading, or deceitful in any manner.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eastern
Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin M. Shook, Treasurer and 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; 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: May 8, 2008 |  | /s/ Kevin M. Shook                   
|                  |  | Kevin M. Shook                       
|                  |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer



42
355-/5*

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 10-14-00014-CR OFFENSE: Poss of a Controlled Substance

STYLE: Ruben Heredia v. The State of Texas COUNTY: Navarro

TRIAL COURT:

IDGE:

Affi

County Court at Law

TRIAL COURT #: C34853-CR

TRIAL COURT JU Hon. James E. Lagomarsino

DISPOSITION: rmed

DATE: Ma rch 5, 2015

JUSTICE: Chief Justice Gray

PUBLISH:

PC

DNP:

FOR REHEARING IS:

DATE:

JUDGE:

MOTION

CLK RECORD:

RPT RECORD:

STATE BR:

APPBR:

March 5, 2014 SUPPCLKRECORD:

SUPPRPTRECORD:

SUPP BR:

PROSE BR:

February 2, 2015

March 12, 2014

November 17, 2014

August 15, 2014

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD cca# 35a m/o

APf>£LL/IA/T[s Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

DATE: tft/tPj/jW/JJUDGE: f^£tM*6~*~

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

CCA IS: ON

JUDGE:

ON

JUDGE:
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1435.502 Bid selection procedures. ( a ) For bids in which the processor offers to remove acreage of sugar beets or sugarcane from production, CCC will rank bids on the basis of the bid amount as a percentage of the expected sugar produced from the retired acreage. Bids with the lowest of such percentages will be selected first. In the case of identical bids, selection may be based on random selection or pro rata shares, as CCC deems appropriate.
( b ) CCC will reject bids for which the bid amounts exceed the expected sugar produced from the retired acreage.
( c ) For bids in which the processor offers to remove sugar production capacity from production, CCC will rank the bids on the basis of the capacity to be removed from production.
( d ) All acceptable bids specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section will be further reviewed by CCC and ranked in order of the greatest reduction in sugar program that can be achieved at the lowest cost to CCC.
[67 FR 54928, Aug. 26, 2002. Redesignated at 74 FR 15367, Apr. 6, 2009]
Unassociated Document


EXHIBIT 10.2


 



InterAmerican Gaming Inc.












 


August 22nd, 2011


 


 


PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL


 


Mr. Marc Askenasi


President


Baron Group Ventures


519-955 Queen Street West


Toronto, On M6J 3X5







Re:           Acquisition of NOWPHIT


 


Dear Mr. Askenasi:







I refer to our letter agreement dated July 7, 2011 and by way of this letter, the parties agree to extend the Closing Date deadline as stated in Paragraph 6 from August 5, 2011 to September 23, 2011. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if this transaction does not close for any reason on or prior to October 7th, 2011, then this agreement shall have no further force and effect and each party will have deemed to have released the other from any obligations.


 


In order to ensure the NOWPHIT product maintains its development schedule, InterAmerican Gaming Inc. agrees to loan up to fifty thousand dollars (US$50,000) in development funds to NOWPHIT Operations Inc. as required prior to the Closing Date.


 


Kindly confirm our agreement by executing where indicated and returning by courier or facsimile a copy of this letter to the undersigned at your earliest convenience.







Sincerely,


 


InterAmerican Gaming Inc.


 


By:           /s/ John G. Simmonds                               


Name:           John G. Simmonds


Title:           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer







Agreed and accepted, this 23rd day of August, 2011 by:







On behalf of the Vendor:







By:           /s/ Marc Askenasi                                  


Name:           Marc Askenasi


Title:           President and Principal Shareholder
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

133028 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. RICHARD D. CLOR, and Stephen J. Markman, EVELYN M. CLOR, JusticesPlaintiffs/CounterDefendants-Appellants,

v SC: 133028 COA: 269011 Lapeer CC: 02-031297-CH IVAN A. BUNTING, and DONNA K. BUNTING,Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
|  | Community Policing Coordinators like Jeff Smith of theFt. Myers Police Department (left) play an integral role in creating healthycommunities.  Officer Smith stands behind the driver's seat of theFt. Myers, Florida, MCOPS vehicle.  |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 1590.19 Audit requirements. ( a ) Subpart F, Audit requirements, of 2 CFR part 200 applies to recipients and subrecipients under this part other than those that are for-profit entities, foreign public entities, or foreign organizations.
( b ) A recipient or subrecipient that is a for-profit entity or a foreign organization, and that expends, during its fiscal year, a total of at least the audit requirement threshold in 2 CFR 200.501 in Federal awards from FAS, is required to obtain an audit. Such a recipient or subrecipient has the following two options to satisfy this requirement: ( 1 ) ( i ) A financial related audit (as defined in the Government Auditing Standards, GPO Stock #020-000-00-265-4) of the agreement or subagreement, in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, if the recipient or subrecipient receives Federal awards under only one FAS program; or
( ii ) A financial related audit of all Federal awards from FAS, in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, if the recipient or subrecipient receives Federal awards under multiple FAS programs; or
( 2 ) An audit that meets the requirements contained in subpart F of 2 CFR part 200.
( c ) A recipient or subrecipient that is a for-profit entity or a foreign organization, and that expends, during its fiscal year, a total that is less than the audit requirement threshold in 2 CFR 200.501 in Federal awards from FAS, is exempt from requirements for a non-Federal audit for that year, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, but it must make records available for review by appropriate officials of Federal agencies.
( d ) FAS may require an annual financial audit of an agreement or subagreement when the audit requirement threshold in 2 CFR 200.501 is not met. In that case, FAS must provide funds under the agreement for this purpose, and the recipient or subrecipient, as applicable, must arrange for such audit and submit it to FAS.
( e ) When a recipient or subrecipient that is a for-profit entity or a foreign organization is required to obtain a financial audit under this section, it must provide a copy of the audit to FAS within 60 days after the end of its fiscal year.
( f ) FAS, the USDA Office of Inspector General, or the U.S. Government Accountability Office may conduct or arrange for additional audits of any recipients or subrecipients, including for-profit entities and foreign organizations. Recipients and subrecipients must promptly comply with all requests related to such audits. If FAS conducts or arranges for an additional audit, such as an audit with respect to a particular agreement, FAS will fund the full cost of such an audit, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.503(d).