alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30133

Summary Calendar

Ryan Haygood; Haygood Dental Care, L.L.C., 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Camp Morrison; C. Barry Ogden; Karen Moorhead; 

Dana Glorioso, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:13-CV-335

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This appeal concerns an attorney’s fee award. Ryan Haygood and 

Haygood Dental Care, LLC (collectively, “Haygood”) sued Camp 

Morrison, C. Barry Ogden, Karen Moorhead, and Dana Glorioso 

(collectively, “Appellees”), along with defendants not part of this appeal. 

After dismissing Haygood’s claims, the district court granted Appellees’ 

motion for attorney’s fees and denied Haygood’s resulting motion for 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30133 Document: 00515553782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
No. 20-30133

2

reconsideration. Haygood now appeals. For the following reasons, we 

DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have authority to hear “appeals from all 

final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” In most cases, “an 

order is final only when it ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing 

for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 

568 F.3d 181, 214 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 

U.S. 463, 467 (1978)). An order imposing attorney’s fees that leaves the 

amount for “later determination” is not final for purposes of appellate 

review. Southern Travel Club. v. Carnival Air Lines, 986 F.2d 125, 131 (5th 

Cir. 1993) (“[A]n order awarding attorney’s fees or costs is not reviewable 

on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum certain.”); see also Pechon v. La. 

Dept. of Health, 368 F. App’x 606, 609–10 (5th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a 

claim for attorney’s fees is “a separate action from one on the merits” and 

leaving the amount in question is not a final order).

On March 14, 2019, the district court granted a motion for attorney’s 

fees in Appellees’ favor without specifying the amount awarded. It then

ordered Appellees to file detailed time reports within twenty-one days of the 

order so that it could determine a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees. 

After an extension, Appellees submitted a motion to file detailed time reports 

with an attached exhibit reflecting same. Thereafter, the district court 

granted the motion to submit detailed time reports, but it has not yet entered 

an order specifying the precise amount of attorney’s fees awarded. Since no 

order exists specifying the amount awarded in attorney’s fees, we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal.

DISMISSED.

Case: 20-30133 Document: 00515553782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Overview of Communications Technology and Development Efforts for 2015 SBIR Phase IThis report highlights innovative SBIR 2015 Phase I projects specifically addressing areas in Communications Technology and Development which is one of six core competencies at NASA Glenn Research Center. There are fifteen technologies featured with emphasis on a wide spectrum of applications such as novel solid state lasers for space-based water vapor dial; wide temperature, high voltage and energy density capacitors for aerospace exploration; instrument for airborne measurement of carbonyl sulfide; high-power tunable seed laser for methane Lidar transmitter; ROC-rib deployable ka-band antenna for nanosatellites; a SIC-based microcontroller for high-temperature in-situ instruments and systems; improved yield, performance and reliability of high-actuator-count deformable mirrors; embedded multifunctional optical sensor system; switching electronics for space-based telescopes with advanced AO systems; integrated miniature DBR laser module for Lidar instruments; and much more. Each article in this booklet describes an innovation, technical objective, and highlights NASA commercial and industrial applications.   space-based water vapor dial; wide temperature, high voltage and energy density capacitors foraerospace exploration; instrument for airborne measurement of carbonyl sulfide; high-power tunable seed laser formethane Lidar transmitter; ROC-rib deployable ka-band antenna for nanosatellites.Document ID20170004519Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNguyen, Hung D.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Steele, Gynelle C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredMay 10, 2017Publication DateMay 1, 2017Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN35731NASA/TM-2017-219459E-19337Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 471296.01.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordsspace-based water vapor dial; wide temperaturehigh voltage and energy density capacitors for aerospace exploration; instrumenAvailable DownloadsNameType20170004519.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Itec Environmental Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary M. De Laurentiis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ Gary M. De Laurentiis
--------------------------
Gary M. De Laurentiis
Chief Executive Officer

February 6, 2004
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****When your brother or sister hascancer : a guide for teens**
 
PDF | Mobi | epub
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3158:T 22/2
Item Number:0507-G-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000920712
 
December 13, 2017
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer and initial Excluded Special Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as General Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C26 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from November 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.                                                                         (logo) Together we’ll go far
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1506

ANDREA RENE'E TOOTLE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BEAUX ART INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY; DR. NIA BANKS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 01684

- JFM )

Submitted : September 20, 2018 Decided: October 4, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Andrea Ren é e Tootle, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Andrea Ren é e Tootle seeks to appeal the district court’s or der denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the dismissal without prejudice of her civil action

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the en try of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 2, 2018 . The notice of appeal was filed on May 3, 2018 , one day late . Because Tootle failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 147

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the

rial Service.fifteenth annual National Peace Officers’ Memo-
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 147

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 147 EH

1 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

2 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

3 The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxil4 iary shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the fif5 teenth annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service,

6 on the Capitol grounds on May 15, 1996, or on such other

7 date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and

8 the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly des9 ignate, in order to honor the 155 law enforcement officers

10 who died in the line of duty during 1995.

11 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized to be con13 ducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1 shall be

14 free of admission charge to the public and arranged not

15 to interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions

16 to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the

17 Capitol Police Board.

18 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The National

19 Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall assume

20 full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident

21 to all activities associated with the event.

22 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

23 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the

24 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the National Fra25 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary are authorized to

26 erect upon the Capitol grounds such stage, sound amplifi-
3

•HCON 147 EH

1 cation devices, and other related structures and equip2 ment, as may be required for the event authorized to be

3 conducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1.

4 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

5 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized

6 to make any such additional arrangements as may be re7 quired to carry out the event.

Passed the House of Representatives March 26,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN ANTHONY HENRY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PRISON MEDICAL PROVIDERS OF

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION AND

REHABILITATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-16516

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00201-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015**

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Anthony Henry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

SEP 03 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Henry failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent by delaying his referral to an ear, nose and throat specialist. 

See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or

she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence

and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Hallett v. Morgan, 296

F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (where the prisoner is alleging that delay of medical

treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led

to further injury).

AFFIRMED. 

2 14-16516
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 17 , 2023

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00749

- CR NO. 14

- 22

- 007 50

- CR

HIPOLITO TORRES GALICIA , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 19

- DCR

- 089024 & 19

- DCR

- 08902 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State charged appel lant with two counts of indece ncy with a chi ld and

one count of aggravated se xual assault of a child. After appellant was convicted of
ag gravat ed se xual assault of a child, the State move d to dismiss the two charges for indecency. The trial court granted t he motion and dismissed the charges for indecency with a chi ld . Appellant, however, file d a notice of appeal in each of the2 three cause numbers , despite ther e only being a final judgment in one of the

causes. In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos , 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ; see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 4 4.02 . Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment of conviction

. See State v. Sellers , 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal ap peal absent express statutory authority. Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1991). See also Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

. There is not a judgment of conviction in trial court cause number 19

- DCR

089024 , appell ate cause number 14

- 2 2

- 00749

- CR ; no r in trial court cause nu mber
19

- DCR

- 08902 5, appellate cause number 14

- 22

- 00 750

- CR. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over these appeals.

We dismiss the appeals.

P ER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christop her and Justices Bourliot and Hassan. Do Not Publish

— Tex . R. App. P. 4 7.2(b).
#### § 1.6153-4 Extension of time for paying the estimated tax.

An extension of time granted an individual under section 6081 for filing the declaration of estimated tax automatically extends the time for paying the estimated tax (without interest) for the same period. See § 1.6073-4 for rules relating to extensions of time for filing declarations of estimated tax by individuals. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of § 301.6091-1 (relating to hand-carried documents), an application for an extension of time for paying a particular installment of the estimated tax shall be addressed to the internal revenue officer with whom the taxpayer files his declaration. Each application must contain a full recital of the causes for the delay. Such extension may be for a reasonable period not to exceed 6 months from the date fixed for payment thereof except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad. Such extension does not relieve the taxpayer from the addition to the tax imposed by section 6654, and the period of the underpayment will be determined under section 6654(c) without regard to such extension.

[T.D. 6950, 33 FR 5357, Apr. 4, 1968]
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Martin J. Reid, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, certify that:

1.             I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ibis Technology Corporation;

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

3.             Based onmy 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)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrantand have:

a)             designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)            evaluatedthe effectiveness 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)             disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially 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 function):

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)            anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: August 14, 2006 |   | /s/Martin J. Reid                      |   |
|-----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Martin J. Reid                         |
|                  |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----