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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 02-40864

_______________________

RAUL ADAM TREVINO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIDENTIFIED HERRERA, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit

Individually and in official capacity;

ASS’T WARDEN, Michael Unit Individually and

in official capacity; UNIDENTIFIED MAJOR, Michael 

Unit Individually and in official capacity;

 UNIT CLASSIFICATION, Officer, Michael Unit

Individually and in official capacity;

UNIDENTIFIED RODRIGUEZ, Correctional Officer III,

Michael Unit Individually and in official capacity;

UNIDENTIFIED CHAIRMAN, Unit Classification,

Michael Unit Individually and in

official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

Civil Docket #6:01-CV-512

_________________________________________________________________

February 20, 2003
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

2

Before JONES, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Trevino, Texas prisoner no. 722977, challenges

the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his Section 1983

lawsuit, which was filed against prison officials after he was

assaulted by a fellow inmate. The district judge affirmed a

magistrate judge’s decision that Trevino’s complaint is frivolous

and fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. We

affirm on the alternative basis that Trevino did not demonstrate

that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Sojourner T. v.

Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Although Trevino appears to have considerable experience

in filing prison grievances, it is useful to remind that the Prison

Litigation Reform Act requires exhaustion of all administrative

remedies before suit may be brought in federal court. 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001). 

The record shows that Trevino filed step 1 and step 2

prison administrative grievances, but they were denied as untimely.

This court has taken a strict approach to the exhaustion

requirement. See Richardson v. Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495, 499 (5th

Cir. 2001) (affirming dismissal of a claim for failure to exhaust
3

after the inmate “incorrectly filed an administrative appeal

instead of a disciplinary appeal”); Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260

F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). In line with this approach, which

we believe is mandated by the statute and Supreme Court authority,

the Eleventh Circuit has expressly rejected the argument that the

filing of an untimely grievance exhausts an inmate’s administrative

remedies. See Harper v. Jenkin, 179 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 1999).

Likewise, we conclude that Trevino’s filing of untimely grievances

was insufficient for purposes of exhaustion under the PLRA.

Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed his claim.

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

COMPONEX CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1178

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin in No. 3:13-cv-00384-wmc, 

Judge William M. Conley.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

HARRY E. VAN CAMP, DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C., 

Madison, WI, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

JOSEPH T. LEONE. 

 MICHAEL JOHN VON LOEWENFELDT, Kerr & Wagstaffe, 

LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by KEVIN CLUNE, IVO LABAR. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and HUGHES,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 16, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4579



# 
J OSEPH T ITO G RIN , a/k/a Jo Jo,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-257) Submitted: May 22, 2002 Decided: July 16, 2002 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., BROWNE, FLEBOTTE, WILSON & HORN, P.L.L.C., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Joseph Tito Grin was convicted of conspiracy to distribute powdercocaine and crack cocaine. He was sentenced to 324 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, we affirmed Grin’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for another sentencing hearing, finding that the Government had not timely disclosed Grin’s presentence report. At the second sentencing hearing, Grin challenged the firearm enhancement and the calculation of the drug amount. The district court, however, interpreted our prior mandate to preclude review of these objections, and ultimately resentenced Grin to 324 months. Grin now appeals. A resentencing hearing should be conducted de novo unless thecourt of appeals’ mandate specifically limits the district court to certain issues. United States v. Broughton-Jones , 71 F.3d 1143, 1149 n.4 (4th Cir. 1995) (remand without limitation); see also United States v. Apple , 962 F.2d 335, 337 (4th Cir. 1992) (remand instruction limited to specific potential error). After a careful review of the sentencing transcript, we believe that the district court misconstrued the scope of our mandate. Accordingly, we are constrained to again vacate Grin’ssentence and remand the case for resentencing, which should be conducted de novo. Of course, we express no opinion on the merits of any sentencing issues that have been or might be raised by Grin. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED 2 U NITED S TATES v. G RIN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         476,854
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  587,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,139
<INVENTORY>                                    396,725
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,502,922
<PP&E>                                         447,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                 269,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,750,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          983,683
<BONDS>                                        750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,645
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,576,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,750,901
<SALES>                                      1,877,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,129,278
<CGS>                                          994,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  994,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,661,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,687
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,526,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,531,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,531,448)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.27)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE SUNBEAM CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIODS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   23,388
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           285,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                             41,729
<INVENTORY>                                             488,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        817,337
<PP&E>                                                  660,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (229,545)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        2,959,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,993,679
<BONDS>                                                 849,259
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  1,074
<OTHER-SE>                                            (242,723)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          2,959,863
<SALES>                                               1,614,926
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,614,926
<CGS>                                                 1,224,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,668,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          2,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      160,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (216,504)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              6,933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (223,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  0
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (2.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (2.08)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Aavid Thermal Technologies, Inc. of Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-17933, 333-17931,
333-17927 and 333-17925) of our report dated February 23, 1996, on our audit of
the consolidated financial statements of Aavid Thermal Technologies, Inc. as of
December 31, 1995 and 1994, and for the two years then ended, which report is
included in this Form 10-K.



                                COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1997











                                      -72-
§ 102-72.45 What are the different types of delegations related to facility management? The principal types of delegations involved in the management of facilities are— ( a ) Real property management and operation authority;
( b ) Individual repair and alteration project authority; and
( c ) Lease management authority (contracting officer representative authority).
#### § 102-75.155 What happens if GSA determines that the report of excess is insufficient?

Where GSA determines that a report is insufficient, GSA will return the report and inform the landholding agency of the facts and circumstances that make the report insufficient. The landholding agency must promptly take appropriate action to submit an acceptable report to GSA. If the landholding agency is unable to submit an acceptable report, the property will no longer be considered as excess property and the disposal agency will cease activity for the disposal of the property. However, GSA may accept the report of excess on a conditional basis and identify what deficiencies in the report must be corrected in order for the report to gain full acceptance.
Exhibit 23.1
                         Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
Vsource, Inc. (formerly Internactive
Buyers Network International, Ltd.):


     As  independent  auditors,  we  hereby  consent to the incorporation of our
report  on  the  financial statements of Interactive Buyer Network International
Ltd.  dated May 15, 1999 except for Note 10 to the financial statements which is
as  of  September  3,  1999,  in  this Form 10-KSB by reference to the Company's
registration  statement  on  Form  10SB previously filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  (SEC  File  No.  000-26563).


/s/  Lucas, Horsfall, Murphy & Pindroh, LLP
Lucas, Horsfall, Murphy & Pindroh, LLP
Pasadena, California
May 10, 2000


<PAGE>
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:22-cv-23115-JEM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:22-cv-23115-JEM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 102-36.90 How do we find out what personal property is available as excess? You may use the following methods to find out what excess personal property is available: ( a ) Check GSAXcess ®, GSA's website for searching and selecting excess personal property. For information on GSAXcess ®, access *http://www.gsaxcess.gov .*
( b ) Contact or submit want lists to regional GSA Personal Property Management offices.
( c ) Check any available holding agency websites.
( d ) Conduct on-site screening at various federal facilities.
[65 FR 31218, May 16, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 53572, Sept. 12, 2006]
Exhibit 99.2
  Independent Accountants Report The Board of Directors HSBC Finance Corporation: We have examined managements assertion that the servicing of credit card receivables owned by the Metris Master Trust (the receivables) has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Article III of the Fourth Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Agreement) dated as of December 1, 2005, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008.  HSBC Finance Corporations management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting that the servicing of receivables has been conducted in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, management's assertion that the servicing of the receivables has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in the Fourth Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2005, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, is fairly stated, in all material respects. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the addressee and parties specified in the Agreement and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. /s/ KPMG LLP  March 16, 2009  
 Exhibit 99.2
     Management Assertion  As of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, the servicing of credit card receivables owned by the Metris Master Trust has been conducted by HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Article III of the Fourth Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2005.   On behalf of the Servicer

/s/ Renee NaskrentRenee NaskrentServicing OfficerHSBC Finance CorporationMarch 16, 2009DateOn behalf of HSBC Card Services Inc, as subservicer for the Servicer

/s/ Michael A. Reeves
Michael A. ReevesExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerHSBC Card Services Inc.
March 16, 2009Date
        /s/ David H. Windle
David H. WindleVice PresidentHSBC Card Services Inc.

March 16, 2009Date
#### § 102-74.455 What impact do the rules and regulations in this subpart have on other laws or regulations?

No rule or regulation in this subpart may be construed to nullify any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated (40 U.S.C. 121 (c)).
NO T F O R P UB LICATIO N IN W EST' S H AWAI # I REP O RTS AND P ACIF IC REP O RTER

NO. CAAP-15-0000478

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

PROTECT AND PRESERVE KAHOMA AHUPUA # A ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, MICHELE LINCOLN, MARK ALLEN, LINDA

ALLEN, and CONSTANCE B. SUTHERLAND, PlaintiffsA ppellants/Appellants, PATRICK AND NAOMI GUTH, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Appellees, v. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, and STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a domestic limited liability company,

Defendants-Appellees/Appellees

A PPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 14-1-0616(1))

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon consideration of Defendant-Appellee Stanford Carr Development, LLC’s Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 24, 2020, which seeks reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion filed on September 14, 2020, the papers in support and the record and files herein, Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000478 02-OCT-2020 07:52 AMNO T F O R P UB LICATIO N IN W EST' S H AWAI # I REP O RTS AND P ACIF IC REP O RTER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 2, 2020. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

2
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB   Document 93-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023   Page 1 of 1
#### § 102-74.100 What are conservation programs?

Conservation programs are programs that improve energy and water efficiency and promote the use of solar and other renewable energy. These programs must promote and maintain an effective source reduction activity (reducing consumption of resources such as energy, water, and paper), resource recovery activity (obtaining materials from the waste stream that can be recycled into new products), and reuse activity (reusing same product before disposition, such as reusing unneeded memos for scratch paper).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4
                            

     At a meeting of the Board of Directors of The Ashton Technology Group, Inc.
held on October 22, 1996, the first paragraph of Article V, Section 6 of the 
By-Laws of Ashton was duly amended to provide in its entirety as follows:

          "The chairman of the board shall preside at each meeting of the
stockholders and of the board and shall be an ex officio member of all
committees of the board.  He shall perform all duties incident to the office of
chairman of the board and such duties as may from time to time be assigned to
him by the board of directors.

          The president shall be the chief executive officer of the Corporation
and shall have the general and active supervision and direction over the
business operations and affairs of the Corporation and over its several
officers, agents and employees, subject, however, to the direction of the
chairman of the board and the control of the board of directors.  At the request
of the chairman of the board, or in the case of his absence or inability to act,
the president shall perform the duties of the chairman of the board, including
presiding at meetings of stockholders and directors and when so acting, shall
have all the powers of, and be subject to all the restrictions upon, the
chairman of the board.  In general, the president shall have such other powers
and shall perform such other duties as usually pertain to the office of
president or as may be assigned to him, from time to time, by the board, the
chairman of the board or these by-laws."

                                      -1-
#### § 101-39.104-2 Reimbursement.

Reimbursement for the motor vehicles and related equipment and supplies acquired by agencies through expenditure made from and not previously reimbursed to any revolving or trust fund authorized by law, shall be made by GSA in an amount equal to the fair market value of the vehicle, equipment, or supplies so taken over, as required by law (40 U.S.C. 491(g)).