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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40375

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GONZALEZ-GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-693-ALL

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Gonzalez-Gutierrez appeals his illegal reentry

conviction. Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Gonzalez contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres
No. 05-40375

-2-

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Gonzalez

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
#### BURROUGHS ADDING MACHINE CO. v. NORTHPORT BANK.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

Verner & Rice, for appellant.

Rice & Taylor, for appellee. '

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
J

- S66029

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JAMES RYAN AND KRIST INA RYAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants

v.
BAKER PET HOSPITAL, DANIEL L. BAKER, AND JOHN M. J ONES Appellees No. 790 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered April 14 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County

Civil Division at No: 2014

- 3023

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, * JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J. FILED MARCH 21, 2016 Appellants, attorneys James Ryan and Kristina Ryan, appeal from the order entered on April 14, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County. Upon revie w, we find we must dismiss Appellants’ appeal. Appellants filed a complaint asserting a professional liability claim against Appellees. In compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 1042.6, Appellees filed a notice of intent to seek a judgment of non pros for failure to file a certificate of merit. Pa.R.C.P. 1042.6. Appellants then untimely filed certificates of merit stating expert testimony is unnecessary. 1 In response, Appellees filed

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 requires that, in professional liability actions, a certificate of merit be filed with or within sixty days of the complaint. Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3(a).J

- S66029

- 15

- 2

-

preliminary objections and a motion for a court order of dismissal for non
pros fo r failure to file a certificate of merit. A hearing was held on April 6, 2015. The trial court entered an order granting Appellees’ motion for non
pros and dismissed Appellants’ complaint with prejudice. Appellants then appealed to this Court. 2

We not e that Appellants filed the instant appeal instead of initially petitioning the trial court to open the judgment of non pros . Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 3051, “[r] elief from a judgment of non pros shall be sought by petition. All grounds for relief, whether to strike off the judgment or to open it, must be asserted in a single petition.” Pa.R.C.P. 3051(a). Failure to file a petition to open the judgment of non pros with the trial court results i n waiver of any claims of error concerning the judgment of non pros
. Pa.R.C.P. 3051; Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons , 782 A.2d 996, 1001 (Pa. 2001); Womer v. Hilliker , 908 A.2d 269, 277 (Pa. 2006). Regrettably, since Appellants failed to petition to either strike or open the judgment of
non pros , we are unable to review Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellants’ appeal. Appeal dismissed.

____________________________________________ 2 Notice of the trial court’s April 14, 2015 order was not given until April 15, 2015. Appellants’ appeal, filed May 15, 201 5, is therefore timely. See Pa.R.C.P 236; Pa.R.A.P. 108(b), 903(a).J

- S66029

- 15

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/21/2016
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
13
- 22
- 00211
- CV
Chris Holt v. Kim Grigg On Appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020
- DCV
- 4566
- B
JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 2 , 2023
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 : PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Donna M. Gagnon, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Specialty Trust, Inc.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. /s/ Donna M. Gagnon
    
    Dated this 29th day of March 2004Name: Donna M. GagnonTitle : Chief Financial Officer
 112
§ 4062.8 Liability pursuant to section 4062(e). ( a ) *Liability amount.* If, pursuant to section 4062(e) of ERISA, an employer ceases operations at a facility in any location and, as a result of such cessation of operations, more than 20% of the total number of the employer's employees who are participants under a plan established and maintained by the employer are separated from employment, the PBGC will determine the amount of liability under section 4063(b) of ERISA to be the amount described in section 4062 of ERISA for the entire plan, as if the plan had been terminated by the PBGC immediately after the date of the cessation of operations, multiplied by a fraction— ( 1 ) The numerator of which is the number of the employer's employees who are participants under the plan and are separated from employment as a result of the cessation of operations; and
( 2 ) The denominator of which is the total number of the employer's current employees, as determined immediately before the cessation of operations, who are participants under the plan.
( b ) *Example.* Company X sponsors a pension plan with 50,000 participants of which 20,000 are current employees and 30,000 are retirees or deferred vested participants. On a PBGC termination basis, the plan is underfunded by $80 million. Company X ceases operations at a facility resulting in the separation from employment of 5,000 employees, all of whom are participants in the pension plan. A section 4062(e) event has occurred, and the PBGC will determine the amount of employer liability under section 4063(b) of ERISA. The numerator described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is 5,000 and the denominator described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is 20,000. Therefore, the amount of liability under section 4063(b) of ERISA pursuant to section 4062(e) is $20 million (5,000/20,000 × $80 million).
[71 FR 34822, June 16, 2006]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tammy House, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 175]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Callahan, JJ. (Filed Nov. 8, 1999.)
Exhibit 32.2





STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kathleen M. Jepson, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such Report.





/s/Kathleen M. JepsonActing Chief Financial OfficerAugust 19, 2011
Exhibit 31.1

                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Ronald J. Sidman, certify that:

    1. I have reviewed this annual report of The First Years;

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

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

    4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

    5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: March 15, 2004


/s/ RONALD J. SIDMAN
--------------------
Ronald J. Sidman
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.179 Identification of contract work.

Contractors and subcontractors under contracts subject to the Act are required to comply with its compensation requirements throughout the period of performance on the contract and to do so with respect to all employees who in any workweek are engaged in performing work on such contracts. If such a contractor during any workweek is not exclusively engaged in performing such contracts, or if while so engaged it has employees who spend a portion but not all of their worktime in the workweek in performing work on such contracts, it is necessary for the contractor to identify accurately in its records, or by other means, those periods in each such workweek when the contractor and each such employee performed work on such contracts. In cases where contractors are not exclusively engaged in Government contract work, and there are adequate records segregating the periods in which work was performed on contracts subject to the Act from periods in which other work was performed, the compensation specified under the Act need not be paid for hours spent on non-contract work. However, in the absence of records adequately segregating non-covered work from the work performed on or in connection with the contract, all employees working in the establishment or department where such covered work is performed shall be presumed to have worked on or in connection with the contract during the period of its performance, unless affirmative proof establishing the contrary is presented. Similarly, in the absence of such records, an employee performing any work on or in connection with the contract in a workweek shall be presumed to have continued to perform such work throughout the workweek, unless affirmative proof establishing the contrary is presented. Even where a contractor can segregate Government from non-Government work, it is necessary that the contractor comply with the requirements of section 6(e) of the FLSA discussed in § 4.160.
#### § 2205.140 Employment.

No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1614, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
#### GUNTER & COOKE, INC., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SERVICE CO., Inc., Appellee.

No. 10967.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 9, 1967.

Decided May 24, 1967.

Channing L. Richards, Charlotte, N. C., (R. Roy Mitchell, Jr., Durham, N. C., Richards & Shefte, Charlotte, N. C., and Nye & Mitchell, Durham, N. C., on brief) for appellant.

William D. Hall, Washington, D. C., (Thornton H. Brooks, Greensboro, N. C., Moore & Hall, Washington, D. C., and McLendon, Brim, Brooks, Pierce & Daniels, Greensboro, N. C., on brief) for appellee.

Before BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and HARVEY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case involves Patent No. 3,006,-035, relating to a drive for textile carding machines, issued October 31, 1961, to Josef K. Gunter and now owned by Gunter & Cooke, Inc., plaintiff below, appellant here. All claims of the patent were held to be invalid but, assuming validity, the court further held that the defendant was guilty of infringement.

In a well-considered opinion1 the district court found and determined that drives incorporating the principles of the *61drive described in the patent in suit were in public use in regular commercial operation and had been described in printed publications more than one year prior to the date of the patent application, 35 U.S.C.A. § 102(b); that the patent specification failed to meet the statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness, 35 U.S.C.A. § 112; and, that the subject matter of the patent did not rise to the level of invention.

We find no error in the decision below and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Affirmed.

1

. Gunter & Cooke, Inc. v. Southern Electric Service Co., 256 F.Supp. 639 (D.C.M.D.N.C. 1966).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32083-32084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12726]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-76-000]


French Broad Electric Membership Corporation v. Carolina Power & 
Light Company; Notice of Complaint

May 16, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 12, 2000, French Broad Electric Membership 
Corporation (FBEMC) filed a complaint against Carolina Power & Light 
Company (CP&L) alleging that CP&L's rate for capacity charged to FBEMC 
for requirements service under a bundled Power Supply Agreement is 
unjust and unreasonable. FBEMC requests that the Commission establish 
hearing procedures to determine the just and reasonable rate to be 
effective 60 days after the filing of the complaint, direct CP&L to 
refund excessive amounts previously collected from FBEMC, and establish 
a refund effective date of 60 days after the filing of the complaint.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before June 1, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers

[[Page 32084]]

to the complaint shall also be due on or before June 1, 2000.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12726 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[No. 48517-2-I.

Division One.

January 6, 2003.]

#### Linda Phelps, *Appellant,*v. Gary Smith, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-06788-6, Gregory P. Canova, J., entered May 3,2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Cox, A.C.J., and Grosse, J.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

165°00'

66°00' [

65°45)
165°00°

HORIZONTAL SCALE. —! 63,360
CONTOUR INTERVAL___ __ _ 100 COUNTS PER SECOND

100 CPS CONTOUR _ _ _ -
500 CPS CONTOUR.

RADIOACTIVITY LOW _ _

SURVEY <ITUDE _— 400 AMT
FUIGHT UNE

ALL DATA ADJUSTED TO 400 FEET ABOVE TERRAIN

164°45'

a7

LIMITS

APPROXIMATE

+—___—— 4 05°45"
KOUGAROK,

AREA

A

| : ;
| 3 cov 4 |
| Nes —, |
4c4s | —_—_| —\—| 64-45
I | AREA |
‘ W es
wo ~
6.405" NOME BEACH AREA we:
66°30" 9,10,11 165°00 '

|
|
I
: fogs SERPENTINE HOT SPRINGS
mA AREA &

APPROXIMATE

INDEX MAP SHOWING DETAILED LOCATION OF

AIRBORNE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS IN SEWARD
PENINSULA, 1968. COVERAGE CONFINED TO
AREAS OUTLINED BY DASHED LINES PLUS
LETTERED PROFILES.

_|_

164° 30!

164° 30'

4

br

1969

IT]

——!

MILES

U.s. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Released to open file +

: 164°15'

—

_|_

164 15"

AERORADIOAC TIVITY MAP

INDEX MAP OF

OPEN FILE 1969

164°00'

| 66°00'

7
1
1
|
‘\ \
lL ‘
\\
OFairbonks aN
j Ly \
Jf Nae 1
a ‘
NI
1
|
f \
‘
| ‘
y \
ye OAnchorage k
ee A 7 \
a a
NY mau
uv
100 ie) 100 200 300 miles
ooo bed —— a —}
Scale
SHOWING LOCATION OF SEWARD PENINSULA AIRBORNE GEOPHYSICAL
1968. SEE DETAILED INDEX FOR ACTUAL COVERAGE.
~ ~ '
rn

PENINSULA AREA, ALASKA

_| 65°45'

164° 00'

Flown and compiied by Lockwood, Kessler,
and Bartlett, Inc., 1968.

OF THE SERPENTINE

HOT SPRINGS AREA, ALASKA

This map is preliminary

and has not been edited

or reviewed for conformity

to Geological Survey standards

SHEET ' NUMBER 8 OF II

LKB 1968
380
§ 4203.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to prescribe procedures whereby a multiemployer plan may, pursuant to sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of ERISA, request the PBGC to approve a plan amendment which establishes special complete or partial withdrawal liability rules.
( b ) *Scope.* This part applies to a multiemployer pension plan covered by title IV of ERISA.
#### § 24.113 Judicial enforcement.

Whenever any person has failed to comply with an order by an ALJ issued under the Energy Reorganization Act, with the exception of any award of compensatory damages, or with a final order of the Secretary, including final orders approving settlement agreements as provided under § 24.111(d), the Secretary may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred. Whenever any person has failed to comply with an order by an ALJ issued under the Energy Reorganization Act, with the exception of any award of compensatory damages, or with a final order of the Secretary under either the Energy Reorganization Act or the Clean Air Act, the person on whose behalf the order was issued also may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred.