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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40543

Conference Calendar

 

JUAN JORGE SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ORLANDO PEREZ; ET AL., 

Defendants,

DAVID STOCKLEY; SAUL CRUZ; MARTHA VILLAREAL,

Defendants-Appellees. 

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CV-180

- - - - - - - - - -

December 15, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Jorge Sanchez, a Texas prisoner (# 577512), appeals the

magistrate judge’s April 13, 1999, order denying his motion for

relief from judgment, filed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). 

Sanchez argues that, in dismissing his civil rights claims

against three remaining defendants based on the qualifiedimmunity doctrine, the magistrate judge erred in failing to 
No. 99-40543 

-2-

consider the requirements of Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1

(1992). Sanchez is essentially arguing that the magistrate judge

committed a legal error, or a “mistake” under Rule 60(b)(1). A

motion under Rule 60(b)(1) must be brought within one year after

the judgment or order to be challenged is entered. See Rule

60(b). Sanchez’s Rule 60(b) motion was not filed until April

1999, when the judgment he is challenging was entered in October

1997. Not only did the magistrate judge did not abuse her

discretion in denying Sanchez’s Rule 60(b) motion, see Carimi v.

Royal Carribean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1345 (5th Cir.

1992), but Sanchez’s appeal is frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

For purposes of the “three-strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g), Sanchez had already accumulated at least four strikes

prior to the issuance of the instant opinion. See Sanchez v.

Biery, No. 98-50423 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 1999); Sanchez v. T. West,

No. 97-40940 (5th Cir. June 16, 1998); Sanchez v. Putska, No. 95-

20917 (5th Cir. March 1, 1996). We dispose of the instant appeal

on the merits because the Biery opinion, No. 98-50423, was issued

after Sanchez had filed the instant appeal.

The instant dismissal counts as an additional strike. 

Accordingly, Sanchez is again notified that he may not proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION IMPOSED UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
1 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40318

Summary Calendar

 

MARIA E. VILLARREAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-95-CV-100

- - - - - - - - - -

February 26, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Maria E. Villarreal argues that the district court erred in

granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and affirming

the decision of the Commissioner denying disability benefits and

supplemental social security income. She avers that the

Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence

and relevant legal standards. Villarreal also avers that the case
should be remanded for the consideration of newly discovered

evidence. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the

parties and affirm for essentially the reasons adopted by the

district court. Villarreal v. Apfel, No. L-95-CV-100 (S.D. Tex.

Jan. 30, 1997). We also find that Villarreal has failed to show

good cause for her failure to present the subject evidence during

her administrative hearing. Geyen v. Secretary of Health and Human

Services, 850 F.2d 263, 264 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7441

LARRY MCLEOD, a/k/a Larry Pully,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEAN R. WALKER, Superintendent, Marion

Correctional Institution,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-195-1-MU)

Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry McLeod, Appellant Pro Se. Mary S. Mercer, Assistant Attorney

General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry McLeod appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See McLeod v. Walker, No. CA-01-

195-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 1951
Editorial Notes: 1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1951.227 Protective advances. The State Director is authorized to approve, without regard to any loan or total indebtedness limitation, vouchers to pay costs, including insurance and real estate taxes, to preserve and protect the security, the lien, or the priority of the lien securing the debt owed to or insured by Rural Development if the debt instrument provides that Rural Development may voucher the account to protect its lien or security. The State Director must determine that authorizing a protective advance is in the best interest of the government. For insurance, factors such as the amount of advance, occupancy of the structure, vulnerability to damage and present value of the structure and contents will be considered. ( a ) Protective advances are considered due and payable when advanced. Advances bear interest at the rate specified in the most recent debt instrument authorizing such an advance.
( b ) Protective advances are not to be used as a substitute for a loan.
( c ) Vouchers are prepared in accordance with applicable procedures set forth in RD Instruction 2024-A (available in any Rural Development office).
[55 FR 4399, Feb. 8, 1990, as amended at 57 FR 36591, Aug. 14, 1992]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1956.58-1956.65 [Reserved]
98-640.

#### State v. Stallings.

Summit C.P. No. CR97051118A. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of execution, IT IS ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion for stay of execution be, and hereby is, granted, pending disposition of this appeal.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: SK Plymouth, LLC and SK E&P Operations America, LLC and Joey 

Jun v. Jean Elizabeth Simmons

Appellate case number: 01-19-00433-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-03233

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellants, SK 

Plymouth, LLC and SK E&P Operations America, LLC, and Joey Jun’s, motion to compel 

arbitration. Appellants filed a motion to stay proceedings in the trial court pending this appeal. 

Appellee, Jean Elizabeth Simmons, filed a response, asking that we limit the stay to trial 

proceedings. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.5 prohibits a trial court from making an order that 

“interferes with or impairs the jurisdiction of the appellate court or effectiveness of any relief 

sought or that may be granted on appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 29.5(b). Rule 29.3 allows an appellate 

court to make any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition of 

the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3. After consideration of the parties’ arguments, we grant the 

motion to stay. 

Further proceedings in the trial court are STAYED pending disposition of this appeal or 

further order of this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Richard Hightower_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___October 22, 2019__
#### §§ 205.666-205.667 [Reserved]
Third Amendment to the Premiere Global Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.56 
  
 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 TO THE PTEK HOLDINGS, INC. 401(k) PLAN 
  
 THIS
THIRD AMENDMENT to the PTEK Holdings, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) is made on this 3rd day of
February, 2005, by the Administrative Committee of the Plan (the “Committee”). 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
  
 WHEREAS, Plan Section 13.1 provides that the Committee has the right to amend the Plan at any time; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan to reflect the name change of the company from PTEK Holdings, Inc. to Premiere Global Services,
Inc., effective as of January 3, 2005; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE,
the Plan hereby is amended as follows: 
  
 1. Effective as of
January 3, 2005, the name of the Controlling Company (as defined in Section 1.23 of the Plan) is changed to Premiere Global Services, Inc. wherever it appears in the Plan, unless the context indicates otherwise. 
  
 2. Effective as of January 3, 2005, the name of the Plan is changed to
Premiere Global Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan wherever it appears in the Plan, unless the context indicates otherwise. 
  
 3. Effective as of January 3, 2005, Appendix A is amended to reflect the change in the name of the company from PTEK Holdings, Inc. to Premiere Global
Services, Inc. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Third Amendment
has been executed by the duly authorized representative of the Committee on the date first above written. 
  

	
	ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PTEK HOLDINGS, INC. 401(k) PLAN
	
	 /s/ Michael E. Havener


	 Michael E. Havener, CFO

	
	 /s/ Alison Sheehan


	 Alison Sheehan, VP, Human Resources

	
	 /s/ Lois Swartwood


	 Lois Swartwood, Benefits Manager
#### § 1970.10 Raising the level of environmental review.

Environmental conditions, scientific controversy, or other characteristics unique to a specific proposal can trigger the need for a higher level of environmental review than described in subparts B or C of this part. As appropriate, the Agency will determine whether extraordinary circumstances (see § 1970.52) or the potential for significant environmental impacts warrant a higher level of review. The Agency is solely responsible for determining the level of environmental review to be conducted and the adequacy of environmental review that has been performed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                               255621
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        144703
<ALLOWANCES>                          88969
<INVENTORY>                           14705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     337611
<PP&E>                               284150
<DEPRECIATION>                       257797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       475489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                130042
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                              42880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                           302567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         475489
<SALES>                             1024509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1029553
<CGS>                                335636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        335636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     723257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (29340)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (29340)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (29340)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 201.26a Vegetable seed mixtures.

Vegetable seed mixtures for seeding/planting purposes shall be designated as a mixture on the label, and each seed component shall be listed on the label in the order of predominance.

[85 FR 40580, July 7, 2020]
#### § 2003.17 Availability of information.

Information concerning Rural Development programs and agencies may be obtained from the Office of Communications, Rural Development, U. S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0705, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0705.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOEY ARNEZ DONALDSON,

D.O.C. # 372350,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv76–WS/MAF

OFFICER HAWKINS, and

OFFICER BENNETT,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 86) docketed December 6, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that

Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 84) Plaintiff’s claim for

declaratory relief be granted. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the report and

recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record and has determined that the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation should be adopted. 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-WS-MAF Document 87 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 86) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 84) Plaintiff’s claim for

declaratory relief is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is DISMISSED.

4. The clerk shall return the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of January , 2022.

s/ William Stafford

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00076-WS-MAF Document 87 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1774.20 Conflict of Interest.

Any processing or servicing activity conducted pursuant to this part involving authorized assistance to Rural Development employees with Water and Environmental Programs responsibility, members of their families, known close relatives, or business or close personal associates, is subject to the provisions of subpart D of part 1900 of this title. Applicants of this assistance are required to identify any known relationship or association with an RUS employee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        1,684,485
<SECURITIES>                                  1,479,698
<RECEIVABLES>                                 7,282,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                    467,000
<INVENTORY>                                     409,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             11,800,928
<PP&E>                                        4,298,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                2,805,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               14,780,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,962,694
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         91,211
<OTHER-SE>                                    7,726,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 14,780,755
<SALES>                                      27,171,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             27,171,401
<CGS>                                         6,147,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                31,480,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              135,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4,258,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (411,630)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (3,847,181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3,847,181)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.42)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I,David Zinberg, certify that:

1. Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bidz.com, Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant is made known to us by others,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14,  2006 |   |                     |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                   |   |                     |
|                   |   | /s/ David  Zinberg       |   |
|                   |   | David Zinberg            |   |
|                   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |   |

 

1

----
PRE-FLIGHT LINE

1 Check Battery Voltage Target Minimum

Main Batteries(1) 25.2 25

Camera Battery (Wall Charger) GoPro

Video LCD Screen 12.6 12

2 Battery Setup

Place Batteries - Velcro and Strap tightly

Insure Proper Weigth 'Balance'

3 Check Heli Connections - Mechanical

Main Rotors - Tight Bolts

GoPro Seated - Strap Connected

Landing Gear

FLIGHT LINE

4 Place Heli - With LED (Tail) Toward Operator

5 Camera

Power on GoPro (IF NOT ON-WAIT UNTIL AFER MAIN POWER CONNECTION)

Press - Record 

6 Power On JR Heli Transmitter 

7 Check Settings on JR Radio Transmitter

JR Radio Power Target Minimum

Switch Positions - Forward Down 11.5 11

8 Connect Flight Battery

1 Blue - 2 Blinking RED for GPS Total

LED blinking solid blue - (NO RED LED's)

9 Insure Autopilot Switch (Forward) - ON (No Yellow LED)

Turn On LCD Video Screen - Verify RECORD on GoPro, Satellites, Power

Insure Video and On-screen Display

10 Insure Autopilot Switch (Forward) - ON (No Yellow LED)

11 All Clear on Flight Line - Insure all systems are still good

12 Power ON Rotors - Initiate Rotors - SWITCH ROTOR ON

13 Power ON Rotors - KEEP THROTTLE AT 1/4 BUT NOT ALL WAY DOWN

14 Take - Off (*Take off in 1-2 Minutes or follow complete Unplug sequence and start #3 again)

15 Post Flight Operations

STICK FULL DOWN UNTIL ROTORS OFF - Wait for complete rotor spin down

DO NOT CROSS ROTOR STICKS TO POWER OFF

Disconnect Main

Power OFF Camera Equipment - GoPRO and Main Power

Power OFF JR Controller

FLIGHT OPERATIONS CHECK-LIST