alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 22

- 11946

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
DERRICK ALLEN,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus J SANTIAGO, Awp,

C MAIORANA, Warden, et al.,
Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11946 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 22

- 11946
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:22

- cv

- 03145

- TKW

- EMT

____________________
Before N EWSOM , G RANT , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : Derrick Allen, pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

. He argues that the form complaint that he filled out was ambiguous, and that he did not intentionally misr epresent his litigation history or otherwise act in bad faith.

We review for abuse of discretion a sua sponte dismissal under § 1915A(b)(1), which requires district courts to dismiss malicious filings. Daker v. Ward , 999 F.3d 1300, 1307 (11th Cir. 2021)

.An action is malicious when a prisoner misrepresents his prior litigation history on a complaint form requiring disclosure of such history and signs the complaint under penalty of perjury. See Rivera v. Allin , 144 F.3d 719, 731 (11th Cir. 1998) (counti ng as a strike under§ 1915(g) an action that was dismissed for an abuse of the legal process because the inmate lied under penalty of perjury about a prior lawsuit), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199 (2007)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Allen’s complaint without prejudice because he failed to disclose all of his relevant prior litigation, and the court was within its USCA11 Case: 22-11946 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2023 Page: 2 of 322

- 11946 Opinion of the Court 3

discretion to dismiss as malicious because of that failure. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action without prejudice.

AFFIRMED. 1

1 Additionally, Allen’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED , and his motion to consolidate the appeal with Case Number 22

- 13808 is DENIED as MOOT

. USCA11 Case: 22-11946 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2023 Page: 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.7275 Euglobulin lysis time tests. ( a ) *Identification.* A euglobulin lysis time test is a device that measures the length of time required for the lysis (dissolution) of a clot formed from fibrinogen in the euglobulin fraction (that fraction of the plasma responsible for the formation of plasmin, a clot lysing enzyme). This test evaluates natural fibrinolysis (destruction of a blood clot after bleeding has been arrested). The test also will detect accelerated fibrinolysis.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9.
[45 FR 60612, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71799, Dec. 30, 2019]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 15, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00308

- CR

Gerald WASHINGTON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR1095 Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Ms. Roxanne Pena is one of the reporters responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s record in this appeal. Ms. Pena’s record was originally due on July 10, 2017. On July 18, 2017, the Clerk’s Office notified Ms. Pena that the reporter’s record was late. Ms. Pena was instructed to file a Notification of Late Record explaining the delay within ten days, or to

f ile the reporter’s record by August 17, 2017. Neither a response nor the record has been filed in

this court.

It is therefore ORDERED that Ms. Pena file the reporter’s record in this court no later than September 25, 2017 . If the record is not received by that date, an order will be issued directing Ms. Pena to appear before this court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Ms. Pena by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United States mail. And, because the trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed, the clerk of this court shall also cause a copy of this order t o be served upon the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and aff ixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of September, 2017

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
#### United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. *et al. v.*Edmondson.

No. 8910.

June 15, 1932.

*Bryan, Middlebroolcs & Garter, Ghauncey Middlebroolcs,*and *John A. Dunaway,*for plaintiffs in error.

*James G. Davis,*contra.

Beok, P. J.

Where an employee of a named company received an injury through an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and made claim for compensation under the provisions of the Georgia workmen’s compensation law, and was awarded compensation by the Department of Industrial Relations of Georgia, or industrial commission, and this was appealed to the superior court, and there, after a hearing, the award of the commission was affirmed, and the employer and the guaranty company filed their bill of exceptions and brought the ease to this court for review, this court is of the opinion that the case should be transferred to the Court of Appeals. For, while the contention is raised in the bill of exceptions that the award in the case in excess of a certain sum would violate specified sections of the State and Federal constitutions, and that the commission was without authority to render an award for the amount thereof under the provisions of the act creating the commission and the amendments thereto, and that under a proper construction of the act last referred to an amount less than the amount of the award should be given under the provisions of that act, admitting the injury to the employee was as claimed by him, and other contentions as to the right of the commission to fix the award at the figures allowed similar to those stated, none of these exceptions involves a construction of the State and Federal constitutions, within the meaning of those terms as employed in the section of the constitution of this State defining the jurisdiction of this court, but they involve an application of the Federal and State constitutions in a general sense. *Gulf Paving Co.*v. *Atlanta,*149 *Ga.*114 (99 S. E. 374); *Howell*v. *State,*153 *Ga.*201 (111 S. E. 675); *Thompson*v. *State,*174 *Ga.*804 (164 S. E. 202). It is therefore ordered that the case be

*Transferred to the Court of Appeals.*

*Rtissell, C. J., and Atldnson, Hill, and Gilbert, JJ., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3770 Temporary crown and bridge resin. ( a ) *Identification.* A temporary crown and bridge resin is a device composed of a material, such as polymethylmethacrylate, intended to make a temporary prosthesis, such as a crown or bridge, for use until a permanent restoration is fabricated.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
§ 606.171 Reporting of product deviations by licensed manufacturers, unlicensed registered blood establishments, and transfusion services. ( a ) *Who must report under this section?* You, a licensed manufacturer of blood and blood components, including Source Plasma; an unlicensed registered blood establishment; or a transfusion service who had control over the product when the deviation occurred, must report under this section. If you arrange for another person to perform a manufacturing, holding, or distribution step, while the product is in your control, that step is performed under your control. You must establish, maintain, and follow a procedure for receiving information from that person on all deviations, complaints, and adverse events concerning the affected product.
( b ) *What do I report under this section?* You must report any event, and information relevant to the event, associated with the manufacturing, to include testing, processing, packing, labeling, or storage, or with the holding or distribution, of both licensed and unlicensed blood or blood components, including Source Plasma, if that event meets all the following criteria: ( 1 ) Either: ( i ) Represents a deviation from current good manufacturing practice, applicable regulations, applicable standards, or established specifications that may affect the safety, purity, or potency of that product; or
( ii ) Represents an unexpected or unforeseeable event that may affect the safety, purity, or potency of that product; and
( 2 ) Occurs in your facility or another facility under contract with you; and
( 3 ) Involves distributed blood or blood components.
( c ) *When do I report under this section?* You should report a biological product deviation as soon as possible but you must report at a date not to exceed 45-calendar days from the date you, your agent, or another person who performs a manufacturing, holding, or distribution step under your control, acquire information reasonably suggesting that a reportable event has occurred.
( d ) *How do I report under this section?* You must report on Form FDA-3486.
( e ) *Where do I report under this section?* You must send the completed Form FDA 3486 to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), either in paper or electronic format. ( 1 ) If you make a paper filing, send the completed form to the CBER Document Control Center (see mailing address in § 600.2(a) of this chapter), and identify on the envelope that a BPDR (biological product deviation report) is enclosed; or
( 2 ) If you make an electronic filing, send the completed Form FDA3486 electronically using CBER's electronic Web-based application.
( f ) *How does this regulation affect other FDA regulations?* This part supplements and does not supersede other provisions of the regulations in this chapter. All biological product deviations, whether or not they are required to be reported under this section, should be investigated in accordance with the applicable provisions of parts 211, 606, and 820 of this chapter.
[65 FR 66635, Nov. 7, 2000, as amended at 70 FR 14984, Mar. 24, 2005; 80 FR 18092, Apr. 3, 2015]
1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3283

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. John H. Lauth, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 13, 2011 Filed: June 17, 2011

___________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), John H. Lauth was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. In sentencing Lauth, the district court 1 applied the provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which provides enhanced criminal penalties in cas es where defendants “[have] three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on-2- occasions different from one another.” The di strict court counted certain violent felony offenses, charged and sentenced in the same case, but taking place on three different dates over a six-week period, as distinctoccasions for the purpose of meeting the ACCA’s three-conviction requirement.
Lauth appeals his sentence, arguing the o ffenses should be “construed as a single criminal episode for [ACCA] purposes.” But Lauth acknowledges his argument “is contrary to this Court’s precedent.” See , e.g. , United States v. Van , 543 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 2008) (“We have repeatedly he ld that convictions for separate drug transactions on separate days are multipleACCA predicate offenses, even if the transactions were sales to the same vic tim or informant.”); United States v. Long , 320 F.3d 795, 802 (8th Cir. 2003) (reversing a sentence which did not impose the ACCA enhancement because the district court e rred by concluding “three violations merged into just one because the convictions occu rred in the same proceeding and because [the defendant] received a single sentence that acc ounted for all three convictions”); United States v. Rush , 840 F.2d 580, 581-82 (8th Cir. 1988) (holding robberies were separate offenses for ACCA purposes because th ey occurred on different dates). Because “[t]his panel is bound by Eighth Circuit pr ecedent, and cannot overrule an earlier decision by another panel,” United States v. Lovelace , 565 F.3d 1080, 1085 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Passmore v. Astrue , 533 F.3d 658, 660 (8th Cir. 2008)), we must reject Lauth’s invitation to revisit the issue.
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President and Chief Executive
Officer and Vice President Law/Finance and Secretary of Ladish Co., Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Kerry L. WoodyKerry L.
WoodyPresident and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Wayne E. LarsenWayne E.
LarsenVice President Law/Finance & Secretary

October 27, 2006
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1070 Amylase test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An amylase test system is a device intended to measure the activity of the enzyme amylase in serum and urine. Amylase measurements are used primarily for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 8/14/2013

Sample Number: 133202-001 Date Collected: 08/07/2013 Date Received: 8/7/2013

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 193 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 08/13/2013 10:09 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 133202-002 Date Collected: 08/07/2013 Date Received: 8/7/2013

2nd Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 14.1 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 08/13/2013 10:14 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 133202-003 Date Collected: 08/07/2013 Date Received: 8/7/2013

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 1.0 ug/L 0.50 0.20 DPC 08/13/2013 10:19 EPA 200.8

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 133202 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.1

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, Andrew Gordon, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Coffee Holding Co., Inc. (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the periods ended
April 30, 2003 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

            B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

June 13, 2003                                      /s/ Andrew Gordon
--------------------------------                   -----------------------------
Dated                                              Andrew Gordon

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Coffee Holding Co., Inc. and will be retained by Coffee Holding
Co., Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7416

DENNIS RAY GRAVES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LONNIE M. SAUNDERS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-264-R)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Ray Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant

Attorney General, Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Graves v. Saunders, No. CA-95-264-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 1995). We

further deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2015007EN.01004902.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/49

---

Action brought on 17 September 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

(Case F-96/14)

(2015/C 007/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J. Lombaert and A. Surny, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission concerning retroactive revision of the survivors’ pensions awarded to the applicants and ordering repayment of the excess amounts which were paid without entitlement.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 22 November 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 22 November 2013;

| — | rule that the amount incorrectly allocated to the applicants will not be recoverable; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the amount incorrectly allocated to the applicants will not be recoverable;

| — | rule that the contested decision will take effect only on the first day of the following month, which is 1 December 2013, with respect to the changes to the amount of the survivors’ and orphans’ pensions awarded to the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the contested decision will take effect only on the first day of the following month, which is 1 December 2013, with respect to the changes to the amount of the survivors’ and orphans’ pensions awarded to the applicants.

---
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3402 Plasmodium species antigen detection assays. ( a ) *Identification.* A *Plasmodium* species antigen detection assay is a device that employs antibodies for the detection of specific malaria parasite antigens, including histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP2) specific antigens, and pan malarial antigens in human whole blood. These devices are used for testing specimens from individuals who have signs and symptoms consistent with malaria infection. The detection of these antigens aids in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of malaria caused by the four malaria species capable of infecting humans: *Plasmodium falciparum*, *Plasmodium vivax*, *Plasmodium ovale*, and *Plasmodium malariae*, and aids in the differential diagnosis of *Plasmodium falciparum* infections from other less virulent *Plasmodium* species. The device is intended for use in conjunction with other clinical laboratory findings.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: *Plasmodium* species Antigen Detection Assays.” See § 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[73 FR 29054, May 20, 2008]