alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20031

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL SECUNDINO-DIEGO, also known as Jose Secundino-Diego, also 

known as Juan Morales-Costilla, also known as Miguel Diego Secundino, also 

known as Miguel Secundino Diego, also known as Diego Miguel Secundino,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-500-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel SecundinoDiego has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Secundino-Diego has not filed a response and has been 

released from custody. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

* 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

March 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20031 Document: 00512969479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-20031

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

in part as frivolous, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States 

v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2007). 

2

 Case: 14-20031 Document: 00512969479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued pu blished opinions have been appealed to the Supreme Court:

1. Thomas Robert Lienau

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0685-17-4 Opinion rendered by Judge Petty on September 11, 2018

2. Robert McKinley Blankenship

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1366-17-3 Opinion rendered by Judge O’Brien on February 5, 2019

3. Andre Jones v. Crothall Laundry and New Hampshire Insu rance Company

Record No. 1070-18-4 Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on February 12, 2019

4. Raymond J . Hamilton v. Pro Football, Inc., t/a The Washington Redskins Great Divide Insurance Company

Record No. 1091-18-4 Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on February 12, 2019

5. Tony Jones v. Pro Football, Inc., t/a The Washington Redskins Great Divide Insurance Company

Record No. 1219-18-4 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on February 12, 2019The following case in which the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion has been disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Ryan Austin Collins

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1096-14-2 Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee on July 21, 2015 Upon remand from the Supreme Court of the United State, judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed by opinio n rendered on March 28, 2019 (151277)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135858 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: 135858 

 COA: 281987 

Genesee CC: 07-020104-FH 

RALPH KIBBY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2008 

order 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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0421 

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. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 227 

For the relief of Ernesto Guillen. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Ernesto Guillen.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101 et seq.), Ernesto Guillen shall be held and considered 

7 to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 

8 permanent residence as of the date of enactment of this 

9 Act upon payment of any necessary visa fees. 

10 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS. 

11 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Ernesto 

12 Guillen under section 1, the Secretary of State shall in-
2

•S 227 IS

1 struct the proper officer to reduce by one the total number 

2 of immigrant visas available during the current fiscal year 

3 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

4 202(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

5 1152(e)).

Æ
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD FARLEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DOCTOR E. CAPOT, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-15695

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01760-LJOWMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Leonard Farley, a California prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to

FILED

JUN 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-15695

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893

(9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Farley’s deliberate indifference claim

against Dr. Capot because Farley failed to allege that Capot knew of or disregarded

a serious risk to Farley’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)

(setting forth deliberate indifference standard); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (isolated instances of negligent failure to provide

medical care do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference). The record shows

that despite his initial failure to diagnose the source of Farley’s abdominal pain,

Capot subsequently responded reasonably to Farley’s medical needs. 

However, the district court erred in dismissing Farley’s deliberate

indifference claim against Dr. Tate. At the pleading stage, the allegations in

Farley’s complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable

to him. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Farley alleged

facts indicating that Tate refused to authorize two urgent requests for surgery on

Farley’s cancerous tumor without any explanation and that the approximately twomonth delay in surgery caused Farley unnecessary pain and further serious harm. 

See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1097-98 (two-month delay in receiving treatment for fractured
3 09-15695

thumb and nineteen-month delay in being seen by a hand specialist which caused

pain and diminished use of hand is sufficient to state deliberate indifference claim). 

Contrary to the district court’s finding, Farley’s allegation that his tumor was

malignant was not contradicted by the record. 

We deny Farley’s motion for appointment of counsel because he fails to

establish exceptional circumstances for such appointment. See Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
#### The State ex rel. Bazel, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

(No. 96-2749

Submitted July 15, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy*and *Marc J. Jaffy;*and *Thomas W. Condit,*for appellant.

*116*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis L. Hufstader,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees Industrial Commission and Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

*Tatgenhorst & Bruestle*and *Erie G. Bruestle,*for appellee General Motors Corporation.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant the writ.

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., separately dissent.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**** SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amalgamated Pictures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avery Pack, President, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: November 10, 2009

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| Avery Pack, President and           Chief Executive Officer           (Principal Executive Officer) and           Acting Chief Financial Officer           (Principal Financial Officer and           Principal Accounting Officer) |
#### Charlie Hawthorne, Respondent, v. Royal Land Development Corp., Appellant.

Order entered October 6, 1966, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to dismiss granted, with $10 costs. The accident allegedly happened June 5, 1963. Action was commenced April 24, 1964, and issue joined June 1, 1964. Since that time no further steps have been taken. Plaintiff defaulted with respect to a physical examination, failed to oppose the motion to dismiss, and does not now offer any excuse for the general delay. Accordingly the motion is granted (CPLR 3216; *Commercial Credit Corp.*v. *Lafayette,*17 N Y 2d 367). Concur — Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and Bastow, JJ.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2568 

To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Mr. TIERNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Essex National Herit5 age Area Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ESSEX NATIONAL HERITAGE 

7 AREA. 

8 Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

9 Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public 

10 Law 104–333) is amended— 

11 (1) in section 507, by striking ‘‘September 30, 

12 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2027’’; and 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2568 IH

1 (2) in section 508(a), by striking 

2 ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 11703 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus COLUMBUS DONAVAN JEFFREY, a.k.a. hideme1977,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:20

- cr
- 00017

- TJC

- PDB

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11703 Date Filed: 04/15/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11703

Before J ORDAN , R OSENBAUM , and N EWSOM , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Meghan Ann Collins , counsel for Columbus Donavan Jeffrey in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Californi a

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s moti on to withdraw is GRANTED , and Jeffrey ’s convictions and
sentence are AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 21-11703 Date Filed: 04/15/2022 Page: 2 of 2
i- - > Texts &*^/ «*? L^i^t J I ''Sfe/s APR 01 2015 Wtim?tlfiiWHpPEALS 

### 7$ Thk&S*,^ r // /? y. APR012015 '1/5 ^t>r,om6fe 6^/-<//>belAcosta, Clerk 

# 1« /2W .^st a/p/«./S^cj 6JL re^mf^ MM dyS UM^T keeled 4 tutie&rj

"Tr-7. /J ^ i \ / / /
§ 4279.201 Purpose and scope. The purpose of the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Program is to assist in the development of new and emerging technologies for the development of Advanced Biofuels, Renewable Chemicals, and Biobased Product Manufacturing. This is achieved through guarantees for loans made to fund the development, construction, and Retrofitting of Commercial-Scale Biorefineries using Eligible Technology and of Biobased Product Manufacturing facilities that use Technologically New Commercial-Scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities to convert Renewable Chemicals and other biobased outputs of Biorefineries into end-user products on a Commercial Scale. ( a ) This subpart and subpart D of part 4287 of this chapter contain the regulations for this Program.
( b ) The Lender is responsible for ascertaining that all requirements for making, securing, servicing, and collecting the loan are complied with.
( c ) Whether specifically stated or not, whenever Agency approval is required, it must be in writing.
( d ) Copies of all forms, regulations, and instructions referenced in this subpart are available in any Agency office and from the USDA Rural Development Web site at *http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/biorefinery-assistance-program*. Whenever a form is designated in this subpart, it is initially capitalized and its reference includes predecessor and successor forms, if applicable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,304,996
<SECURITIES>                                 9,838,998
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    230,318
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,477,449
<PP&E>                                         439,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                 374,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,553,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,177,574
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        21,360
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,354,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,553,486
<SALES>                                        791,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               791,502
<CGS>                                          660,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  660,857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,498,023
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,415,441
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,082,582
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,082,582
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DYLAN JENELLE THREADGILL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5606-TKW-HTC 

PAMELA DENNARD, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 3). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were 

filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the case file, I agree 

with the magistrate judge’s determination that venue is improper in this District and 

that the case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California, and the Clerk shall close the file in 

this Court.

Case 3:20-cv-05606-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05606-TKW-HTC Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40737 

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIE A. ROSS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIM WEST ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-358

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie A. Ross, Jr., Texas inmate #371414, appeals the

dismissal, as frivolous, of his civil rights complaint. Ross

argues that the defendants, by failing to provide a safe work

area for him, were deliberately indifferent toward him and thus

violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

For essentially the same reasons as relied upon by the district

court in its order of dismissal, we detect no abuse of discretion
No. 96-40737

- 2 -

in the court’s frivolousness determination. See Ross v. West,

No. 1:95cv358 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 1996).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

5th Cir. R. 42.2. It is DISMISSED. We caution Ross that any

additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Ross is further

cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do

not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been

previously decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
3.502 Subcontractor kickbacks.

3.502-1 Definitions.

3.502-2 Subcontractor kickbacks.

3.502-3 Contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 3.5 - Other Improper Business Practices
Adobe Acrobat Version (pdf) of this document

**U.S. Department      of Justice**
§ 25.620 Eligible grant purposes. Eligible grant purposes are: ( a ) Services directed at the goals of— ( 1 ) Achieving or maintaining economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency;
( 2 ) Achieving or maintaining self sufficiency, including reduction or prevention of dependency;
( 3 ) Preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families;
( b ) Projects and activities identified in the strategic plan for the area; and
( c ) Activities that benefit residents of the area for which the grant is made.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Warner Chilcott Limiteds Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of complying
with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Roger M. Boissonneault, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Herendeen, the Chief Financial Officer of Warner Chilcott Limited, each certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Warner Chilcott Limited.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 8, 2008



/s/ Roger M. BoissonneaultName:

Roger M. BoissonneaultTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Paul HerendeenName:

Paul HerendeenTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Warner Chilcott Limited and will be retained by
Warner Chilcott Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.