alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.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. 96-40022 Summary Calendar

ROBERT E. PINE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MARTY KEVIN BRUMFIELD ET AL., Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-42

- - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert E. Pine appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed de novo the district court’s judgment, the record, and the briefs and find no error in the district court’s holding that Judge David Christian and Assistant District Attorneys Arnold Davy Davis and Brian K. Bricker are absolutely immune from suit.No. 96-40022 - 2 -

** Rooker v. Fidelity Trust , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Pine’s due process and Fourth Amendment challenges are “inextricably intertwined” with his state court conviction for cruelty to animals and the civil forfieture of a colt. See Pine (Approximately 15 Horses and 2 Head of Cattle) v. State , 921 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996), writ applied for (Jul. 18, 1996). Pine is essentially calling upon the federal courts to review the validity of the state-court decisions regarding his conviction and the forfeiture. Under the Rooker-Feldman ** doctrine, "federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments." Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas , 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 271 (1994). “When issues raised in a federal court are `inextricably intertwined’ with a state judgment and the court is `in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision,’ the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Davis v. Bayless , 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995)(citations omitted). “The casting of a complaint in the form of a civil rights action cannot circumvent this rule.” Liedtke , 18 F.3d at 317. We find no reversible error in the dismissal of the defendants and affirm the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 111-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 111-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 111-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 111-14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 4 of 4
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.1713 Safety Zone; City of Valdez Annual Fireworks Display within the Captain of the Port, Prince William Sound Zone, Port Valdez; Valdez, AK. ( a ) *Regulated area.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters of Port Valdez, from surface to bottom, within a 200-yard radius from a position of 61°07′22′′ N and 146°21′13′′ W. These coordinates are based on the 1984 World Geodetic System (WGS 84). This includes the entrance to the Valdez small boat harbor.
( b ) *Definitions.* As used in this section, *designated representative* means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Prince William Sound (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone. The term “official patrol vessel” may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, State, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Prince William Sound.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) The general safety zone regulations contained in subpart C of this part, as well as the following regulations, apply.
( 2 ) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the designated representative during periods of enforcement.
( 3 ) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative. Upon being hailed by a designated representative by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
( 4 ) Anyone desiring to enter or operate within the regulated area may request permission from the COTP via VHF Channel 16 or (907) 835-7205 (Prince William Sound Vessel Traffic Center) to request permission to do so.
( 5 ) The COTP may be aided by other Federal, State, borough, and local law enforcement officials in the enforcement of this section.
( d ) *Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on December 31st of each year, or during the same time frame on specified weather delay dates January 1st through January 5th each year.
[89 FR 61348, July 31, 2024]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SARN SD3 LLC,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

CZECHOSLOVAK GROUP 

A.S.,

Defendant Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 184, 2023

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N17C-12-185

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§

Submitted: June 20, 2023

Decided: July 3, 2023

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 

appears to the Court that:

(1) On May 26, 2023, the appellant, SARN SD3 LLC (“SARN”), filed a 

notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s April 27, 2023 decision denying its 

motion to amend the Superior Court’s December 23, 2020 decision on SARN’s 

motion for partial summary judgment. Because the court’s order did not appear to 

be a final order, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to SARN to show cause why 
2

this appeal should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with Supreme Court 

Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. 

(2) SARN has responded to the notice to show cause and notes that it filed 

this appeal before the Superior Court entered a final judgment as a precaution to 

preserve its right to appeal. At the Court’s direction, the appellee, Czechoslovak 

Group A.S. (“CGA”), also responded to the notice to show cause. CGA avers that 

the Superior Court’s order is interlocutory and observes that the parties have 

submitted competing forms of final judgment and order, which the Superior Court 

has taken under advisement. CGA argues that this appeal must be dismissed as an 

impermissible interlocutory appeal. We agree.

(3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court 

is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.1 An order is deemed final 

and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order be the court’s 

final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.2 It is clear from 

the Superior Court docket—which reflects that the Superior Court has not yet acted 

on the parties’ competing forms of final judgment and order—that the Superior 

Court’s April 27, 2023 decision did not dispose of all justiciable matters in this case. 

1

Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).

2

J. I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. Williams Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
3

SARN was therefore required to comply with the provisions of Rule 42 or await the 

Superior Court’s entry of a final order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 17, 2021

No. 04-21-00184-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N., ET AL., CHILDREN

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-01795

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Kristin M. Anderson’s request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record is 

GRANTED. The reporter’s record is due on or before May 27, 2021.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of May, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4965

AN ACT

To amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities

Act, 1930, to extend the time period duringwhich persons may file a complaint alleging thepreparation of false inspection certificates atHunts Point Terminal Market, Bronx, NewYork.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4965

AN ACT

To amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act,

1930, to extend the time period during which persons

may file a complaint alleging the preparation of false

inspection certificates at Hunts Point Terminal Market,

Bronx, New York.
2

•HR 4965 EH

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 TIME PERIOD FOR FILING CER4 TAIN COMPLAINTS UNDER PERISHABLE AG5 RICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1930.

6 Section 6(a)(1) of the Perishable Agricultural Com7 modities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)(1)) is amended by

8 adding at the end the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding the pre9 ceding sentence, a person that desires to file a complaint

10 under this section involving the allegation of false inspec11 tion certificates prepared by graders of the Department

12 of Agriculture at Hunts Point Terminal Market, Bronx,

13 New York, prior to October 27, 1999, may file the com14 plaint until January 1, 2001.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 17,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>



                                  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 on Form 10-Q of American Express Credit
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Christopher S. Forno, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.



/s/ Christopher S. Forno
------------------------
Name:    Christopher S. Forno
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    November 14, 2005


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under
that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and
specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 89.27 Waters upon which Inland Rule 24(j) applies. ( a ) Inland Rule 24(j) applies on the Western Rivers and the specified waters listed in § 89.25 (a) through (i).
( b ) Inland Rule 24(j) applies on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marks, Florida, to the Rio Grande, Texas, including the Morgan City-Port Allen Alternate Route and the Galveston-Freeport Cutoff, except that a power-driven vessel pushing ahead or towing alongside shall exhibit the lights required by Inland Rule 24(c), while transiting within the following areas: ( 1 ) St. Andrews Bay from the Hathaway Fixed Bridge at Mile 284.6 East of Harvey Locks (EHL) to the DuPont Fixed Bridge at Mile 295.4 EHL.
( 2 ) Pensacola Bay, Santa Rosa Sound and Big Lagoon from the Light “10” off of Trout Point at Mile 176.9 EHL to the Pensacola Fixed Bridge at Mile 189.1 EHL.
( 3 ) Mobile Bay and Bon Secour Bay from the Dauphin Island Causeway Fixed Bridge at Mile 127.7 EHL to Little Point Clear at Mile 140 EHL.
( 4 ) Mississippi Sound from Grand Island Waterway Light “1” at Mile 53.8 EHL to Light “40” off the West Point of Dauphin Island at Mile 118.7 EHL.
( 5 ) The Mississippi River at New Orleans, Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal from the junction of the Harvey Canal and the Algiers Alternate Route at Mile 6.5 West of Harvey Locks (WHL) to the Michoud Canal at Mile 18 EHL.
( 6 ) The Calcasieu River from the Calcasieu Lock at Mile 238.6 WHL to the Ellender Lift Bridge at Mile 243.6 WHL.
( 7 ) The Sabine Neches Canal from mile 262.5 WHL to mile 291.5 WHL.
( 8 ) Bolivar Roads from the Bolivar Assembling Basin at Mile 346 WHL to the Galveston Causeway Bridge at Mile 357.3 WHL.
( 9 ) Freeport Harbor from Surfside Beach Fixed Bridge at Mile 393.8 WHL to the Bryan Beach Pontoon Bridge at Mile 397.6 WHL.
( 10 ) Matagorda Ship Channel area of Matagorda Bay from Range “K” Front Light at Mile 468.7 WHL to the Port O'Connor Jetty at Mile 472.2 WHL.
( 11 ) Corpus Christi Bay from Redfish Bay Day Beacon “55” at Mile 537.4 WHL when in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway main route or from the north end of Lydia Ann Island Mile 531.1A when in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Alternate Route to Corpus Christi Bay LT 76 at Mile 543.7 WHL.
( 12 ) Port Isabel and Brownsville Ship Channel south of the Padre Island Causeway Fixed Bridge at Mile 665.1 WHL.
[CGD 91-050, 58 FR 27625, May 10, 1993, as amended by USCG-2018-0874, 84 FR 30878, June 28, 2019]
## CAL - ORE

LIFE FLIGHT, LLC. Docket Management Facility US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12 - 140 Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir: We are appl yi ng for an Exemption to the rule that only operator may listed on a Anti Drug Program, we would like to have DK Air, LL C. added to our anti drug program. CAL - ORE Life Flight LLC. d/b/a DK Air, LLC. 10MJW27 Air Carrier Certificate JXKA142B 202 Dale Rupert Rd Crescent City , CA 95531 DK Air, LLC is an Air T our Operator, (10MJW27) with two Helicopters N4377X and N125AS. We have full operational control of the aircraft and all personnel of DK Air are emplo yed b y CAL - ORE Life Flight, OPSPEC A - 049.

Thank You Robert S Walker Chief Pilot/Drug Program Man ager File; DK Air2

Air Port Office 202 Dale Rupert rd. 707 - 465 - 3804 Crescent City , CA 9331 707 - 464 - 4784 Fax
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 Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 26, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                 

*1. Robert M. Alexander,*                     Calhan, Colorado; Sean A. Gooding, Cherry Hills Village, Colorado; Alexander R. Gooding, Cherry Hills Village, Colorado; Leslie A. Melzer, Denver, Colorado; Robert J. Breidenthal, Bonner Springs, Kansas; Arcadia Partners, Ltd.(Dan & Patricia League), Colorado Springs, Colorado; Michael S. League, Colorado Springs, Colorado; and Joe F. Jenkins, Tonganoxie, Kansas; to acquire voting shares of Financial Services of the Rockies, Inc., Colorado Springs, Colorado, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank of Colorado Springs, Colorado.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 6, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-14733 Filed 6-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Gregory *vs*Litsey.

Afpf.au prom the Washington Circxut.

*Practice in Chancery suits.*

Chancery.. *Case*14,

*December*20.

case stated.

Judoe Beech

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Gregory obtained a decree against Litsey for $485 42 cents, which, after being paid off by the latter, was reversed in this Court. Upon the return of the mandate from this Court, the Court below granted a rule upon Gregory, to show cause why he should not be compelled to refund the amount thus paid him by *44Litsey. The rule, upon hearing, was made absolute, and Gregory decreed.to refund, and the propriety of that order or decree, is the only question for consideration.

Where money has been paid in obedience to a decree of the Circuit Court, which is reversed by the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court, by rule upon the party, may cause it to be refunded, and it is not material whethei it has been voluntarily paid to the party or hi3 order, or coerced by execution.

*'McHenry*for appellant; *Shtick*for appellee.

It is conceded by counsel, if the money had been paid into Court by Litsey, or payment had been coerced by execution upon the decree, that the proceeding by rule to compel Gregory to refund after the reversal, would have been the appropriate remedy.. But i-t is insisted, as payment in this case was not so made, but voluntary, and in the country, that the proceeding was unauthorized. We perceive no good reason for this distinction, nor are we aware that any such has been recognized in practice by Courts of equity in cases of this kind. It is sufficient, if the 'payment has been made pursuant to the order of the Chancellor, and that the payment in this case was so made, satisfactorily appears. Whether made directly to Gregory, or by his direction, the money was paid for him to his creditors, is not material. The case of *Kane,*&c. vs *Pilcher, &c., (7 B.*Monroe, 651,) and other authorities, which might be cited, fully sustains the proceeding in. this case. And the decree is therefore affirmed.
#### § 80.1385 Strait of Juan de Fuca.

The 72 COLREGS shall apply on all waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

[CGD 81-087, 46 FR 61457, Dec. 17, 1981; 47 FR 3351, Jan. 25, 1982, and 49 FR 3177, Jan. 26, 1984]
#### § 127.615 Fires.

In the marine transfer area for LNG, the operator must ensure that there are no fires when there is LNG present.

[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended at CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995; USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
###### Editorial Note on Part 157

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 157.112 Approved Crude Oil Washing Operations and Equipment Manual.

If the manuals submitted under § 157.108 or § 157.110 meet § 157.138, the Coast Guard approves the manuals and forwards one of the approved manuals to the submitter.
§ 20.603 Interrogatories. ( a ) Any party requesting interrogatories shall so move to the ALJ. The motion must include— ( 1 ) A statement of the purpose and scope of the interrogatories; and
( 2 ) The proposed interrogatories.
( b ) The ALJ shall review the proposed interrogatories, and may enter an order either— ( 1 ) Approving the service of some or all of the proposed interrogatories; or
( 2 ) Denying the motion.
( c ) The party requesting interrogatories shall serve on the party named in the interrogatories the approved written interrogatories.
( d ) Each interrogatory must be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation, unless it is objected to, in which event the party named shall state the reasons for the objection instead of a response. This party, the party's attorney, or the party's representative shall sign the party's responses to interrogatories.
( e ) Responses or objections must be filed within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
( f ) A response to an interrogatory is sufficient when— ( 1 ) The responder lists the records from which such answers may be derived or ascertained; and
( 2 ) The burden of ascertaining the information in a response to an interrogatory is substantially the same for all parties involved in the action; and
( 3 ) The information may be obtained from an examination, audit, or inspection of records, or from a compilation, abstract, or summary based on such records.
( g ) The party serving the interrogatory shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect the resource and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries. The specification must include sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and identify the individual records from which the answer may be ascertained.