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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11078

Summary Calendar

GREGORY D. ROWE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RUBEN GONZALEZ, State of Texas Judge; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; BRENDA H. 

DUMAS; PACE REALTY CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-655

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory D. Rowe moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on 

appeal to challenge the dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to prosecute. 

For the following reasons, we grant Rowe’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on 

appeal, dispense with further briefing, vacate the district court’s judgment, 

and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.

 

* 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

June 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11078 Document: 00513071423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2015
No. 14-11078

2

Rowe is economically eligible to proceed IFP on appeal. See Carson v. 

Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Rowe has also raised a nonfrivolous 

issue for appeal with respect to whether the district court considered him to be 

economically ineligible for arbitrary or erroneous reasons and abused its 

discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying him 

leave to proceed IFP in the district court. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 

220 (5th Cir. 1983); Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th 

Cir. 1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Thompson 

v. Drewry, 138 F.3d 984, 985-86 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court denied Rowe 

leave to proceed IFP based on his and his spouse’s combined income. However, 

Rowe asserted in his motion for reconsideration that he did not have a spouse 

who lived with him and that his income was about to be lowered as he had 

reported in his IFP motion. He provided documents that substantiated these 

assertions. In addition, his assertion that he lived apart from his alleged 

spouse was consistent with his underlying complaint about being denied 

housing with his future wife.

On the merits of the appeal, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 

authorizes the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or comply with a 

court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). For the reasons stated above, the district 

court likely abused its discretion in ordering payment of the filing and 

administrative fees. Accordingly, the district court also abused its discretion 

in dismissing Rowe’s complaint for failure to prosecute. See Coleman v. 

Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 766 (5th Cir. 2014).

MOTION GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.

 Case: 14-11078 Document: 00513071423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2015
# Home Page

Advanced          Clipboard 

## Learn

            About PubMed          

            FAQs & User Guide          

            Finding Full Text          

## Find

            Advanced Search          

            Clinical Queries          

            Single Citation Matcher          

## Download

            E-utilities API          

            FTP          

            Batch Citation Matcher          

## Explore

            MeSH Database          

            Journals          

##           Trending Articles        

          -                  Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.                GBD 2021 Stroke Risk Factor Collaborators.Lancet Neurol. 2024.PMID: 39304265 
          -                  Experience and Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic in Portugal: Perceptions of Community Pharmacy Professionals.                Advinha AM, et al.Port J Public Health. 2023.PMID: 38021255Free PMC article. 
          -                  Light-induced remodeling of phytochrome B enables signal transduction by phytochrome-interacting factor.                Wang Z, et al.Cell. 2024.PMID: 39317197 
          -                  Myeloid beta-arrestin 2 depletion attenuates metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis via the metabolic reprogramming of macrophages.                Wei X, et al.Cell Metab. 2024.PMID: 39305895 
          -                  Bone Morphogenetic Protein 9 Protects Against Myocardial Infarction by Improving Lymphatic Drainage Function and Triggering DECR1-Mediated Mitochondrial Bioenergetics.                Duan Z, et al.Circulation. 2024.PMID: 39315433 

            See more trending articles          

##         Latest Literature      

        -                Am Heart J (1)             
        -                Am J Clin Nutr (1)             
        -                Cell (2)             
        -                J Am Coll Cardiol (11)             
        -                J Biol Chem (3)             
        -                J Neurosci (1)             
        -                Nat Commun (5)             
        -                Nature (54)             
        -                Neuron (3)             
        -                Pediatrics (3)
#### § 67.18 Use of project funds.

Grant funds must be spent solely for carrying out the approved project in accordance with Title IX of PHS Act, section 1142 of the Social Security Act (if applicable), the regulations of this subpart, the terms and conditions of the award, and the provisions of 45 CFR part 75.

[62 FR 12908, Mar. 18, 1997, as amended at 81 FR 3010, Jan. 20, 2016]
§ 404.11 Appeals. ( a ) The following parties may appeal to the agency head or designee of the Federal agency any decision or determination concerning the grant, denial, modification, or termination of a license: ( 1 ) A person whose application for a license has been denied;
( 2 ) A licensee whose license has been modified or terminated, in whole or in part; or
( 3 ) A person who timely filed a written objection in response to the notice required by § 404.7 and who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Federal agency that such person may be damaged by the agency action due to being denied the opportunity to promote the commercialization of the invention.
( b ) The Federal agency shall establish appropriate procedures for considering appeals under paragraph (a) of this section.
[71 FR 11514, Mar. 8, 2006, as amended at 88 FR 17740, Mar. 24, 2023]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a hold a roundtable about securities lending and short sale issues on September 29 and September 30, 2009.

The roundtable discussion will be held in the auditorium at SEC headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., in Washington, DC. On September 29, the roundtable will focus on securities lending issues and take place from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 4 p.m. On September 30, the roundtable will focus on short sale pre-borrowing and additional short sale disclosures and take place from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 12:30 p.m.

The roundtable will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks.

*For further information, please contact:*

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: September 14, 2009.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-22431 Filed 9-14-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
|  |  |  |
|--|--|--|
|  |
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3495

To extend the time for the submission of the final report of the Veterans’

Claims Adjudication Commission.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 21, 1996

Mr. STUMP (for himself, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. EVERETT, and Mr. EVANS)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To extend the time for the submission of the final report

of the Veterans’ Claims Adjudication Commission.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF VETERANS’ CLAIMS ADJUDICA4 TION COMMISSION.

5 (a) EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF FINAL

6 REPORT.—Section 402(e)(2) of the Veterans’ Benefits

7 Improvements Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–446; 108

8 Stat. 4659) is amended by striking out ‘‘Not later than

9 18 months after such date’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

10 ‘‘Not later than December 31, 1996’’.
2

•HR 3495 IH

1 (b) FUNDING.—From amounts appropriated to the

2 Department of Veterans Affairs for each of fiscal years

3 1996 and 1997 for the payment of compensation and pen4 sion, the amount of $75,000 is hereby made available for

5 the activities of the Veterans’ Claims Adjudication Com6 mission under title IV of the Veterans’ Benefits Improve7 ments Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–446; 108 Stat.

8 4659).

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 10, 2018

No. 04-16-00831-CV

WONG GROCERY CO., LLC,

Appellant

v.

Patrick LAMBKIN, Felipe Valdez dba Raw Happiness Juice Bar,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-10644

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On August 9, 2018, the appellee filed a motion for en banc reconsideration. The Court 

requests that the appellant file a response on or before October 1, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P.

49.2.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.71 Self-contained breathing apparatus; required components. ( a ) Each self-contained breathing apparatus described in § 84.70 shall, where its design requires, contain the following component parts: ( 1 ) Facepiece or mouthpiece, and noseclip;
( 2 ) Respirable breathing gas container;
( 3 ) Supply of respirable breathing gas;
( 4 ) Gas pressure or liquid level gages;
( 5 ) Timer;
( 6 ) Remaining service life indicator or warning device;
( 7 ) Hand-operated valves;
( 8 ) Breathing bag;
( 9 ) Safety relief valve or safety relief system; and
( 10 ) Harness.
( b ) The components of each self-contained breathing apparatus shall meet the minimum construction requirements set forth in subpart G of this part.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Maritime Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the names of the members of the Performance Review Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harriette H. Charbonneau, Director of Human Resources, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20573.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Sections 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr.,

Chairman.

The Members of the Performance Review Board Are:

1. Joseph E. Brennan, Commissioner.

2. Rebecca F. Dye, Commissioner.

3. Clay G. Guthridge, Administrative Law Judge.

4. Florence A. Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis.

5. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.

6. Vern W. Hill, Director, Bureau of Enforcement.

7. Peter J. King, General Counsel.

8. Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

9. Austin L. Schmitt, Director of Operations.

[FR Doc. E9-22983 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31211

FREDDIE SMITH; LORI SMITH Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MICHAEL J FIFTHIAN; KEITH SCHONHERR; JORDAN ARNOLD, JR; VERNON L CANNON; LADD TRUCKING INC; CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE CO Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:03-CV-2076
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D December 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
#### § 404.15 Severability.

The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.

[88 FR 17740, Mar. 24, 2023]
**Exhibit 99.2**
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 McRae Industries, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 3, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Marvin G. Kiser, Sr., Vice President of Financeof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.
/s/ Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.
§ 64.8 How may funds be used? A grantee shall expend funds it receives under this part solely in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of the grant award, and the applicable cost principles in 45 CFR part 75, subpart E. The funds may not be expended for: ( a ) Compensation for employment or for the performance of personal services by individuals receiving training and instruction; or
( b ) Payments to any individual who does not meet the minimum qualifications for training and instruction established by the grantee and approved by the Secretary or who has failed to demonstrate satisfactory participation in the training in accordance with the usual standards and procedures of the grantee.
[56 FR 29192, June 26, 1991, as amended at 81 FR 3009, Jan. 20, 2016]
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.85 Breathing bags; minimum requirements. ( a ) Breathing bags shall have sufficient volume to prevent gas waste during exhalation and to provide an adequate reserve for inhalation.
( b ) Breathing bags shall be constructed of materials which are flexible and resistant to gasoline vapors.
( c ) Breathing bags shall be installed in a location which will protect them from damage or collapse by external forces, except on apparatus classified for escape only.
#### John William MORRIS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. AI-225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 16, 1982.

*1162John William Morris, pro se.

No response for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner alleges that his gain time has been improperly calculated, in violation of Weaver v. *Graham,*450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). However, he has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and timely filed for review of final agency action in this Court, pursuant to § 120.68(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). Rule 33-3.07, Fla.Admin.Code, dictates a two-step review process within the Department of Corrections, prior to judicial review of the order of the Secretary or his representative. This Court has no jurisdiction over petitioner’s case because he fails to show that he filed this petition within 30 days of the Secretary’s response to an inmate grievance appeal. *See*Fla.R.App.P. 9.110. This Court stated in *Holman v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission,*407 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1981), that “[i]f the date of final agency action is included in a petition and if that date is within 30 days of the filing of the petition, this Court can treat the petition as a notice of appeal, *see*Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c), and ultimately consider the cause on its merits.”

We hold that the above rule applies to inmate grievances against the Department of Corrections. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied for failure to allege and show exhaustion of administrative remedies.

JOANOS, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
#### Mary Ferguson, Plaintiff, *v.*Robert L. Harrison, Executor, Etc., of Delia T. S. Parnell, Deceased, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

May, 1899.)

¿Foreign executor — Cannot be sued in the State of New York — Jurisdiction.

A foreign executor cannot be sued in the courts of the State of New York in his representative capacity, and an allegation that he has assets of his testatrix in his possession in this State does not alter the rule Or confer jurisdiction.

Demurrer to complaint.

V. Wright Kingsley, for plaintiff.

Harrison *&*Byrd, for defendant.

Truax, J.

This is an action at law to recover a certain sum of money from the defendant on an indebtedness alleged to be due to the plaintiff' from the testatrix of the defendant at-the time of her death. The. complaint alleges that the defendant Harrison was appointed executor in the state of'New Jersey; that the testatrix resided without this state at the time of her death, and th'at ■she left property in this state and in the state of New Jersey. It ' has frequently been 'held that the words *“*executors of the estate ■of” in the caption of a complaint are descriptive of the person, and do not imply that the person is sued as executor. If the complaint be construed as one against the defendant personally, no ■cause of action is set tip in it. It was contended, however, on the .argument that the action was against the defendant as executor. "Viewed in that light, the complaint does not set forth a cause of action. It has frequently been held by the courts of this state that a foreign executor cannot be sued purely in his representative ■capacity in the courts of this state. Flandrow v. Hammond, 13 App. Div. 325; Field v. Gibson, ,20 Hun, 214, and cases there cited. It is claimed, however, that the allegation in the complaint that the defendant has assets of the testatrix in his possession in this state gives this court jurisdiction. That point was considered in Field v. Gibson, supra, and it was there held" that an action cannot *381now be maintained against a person in the character of executor *de son tort.*Hopper v. Hopper, 125 N. Y. 400, was an action brought here against an ancillary executor, and is not in conflict with the views above expressed. In fact, it was said in that- case, *“*that a foreign executor cannot sue or be sued in this state upon a contract of his testator, since the right or liability is purely representative and exists only by force of the official character, and so cannot pass beyond the jurisdiction which gave it.” Demurrer must be sustained, with costs.

Demurrer sustained, with costs.