alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion F iled October 6, 2020 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00627-CV No. 05-20-00628-CV

IN RE GBENGA M. FUN MILAYO, Relator Original Proceedings from the County Court at Law No. 7 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007-02520-2019 & 007-01076-2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Osborne, and Justice Reiche k Opinion by Chief Justice Burns In these original proceedings, relator Gbenga M. Funmilayo seek s a writ of mandamus compelling the trial c ourt (1) to approve or otherwise determine the sufficiency of the cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond he provided, and (2) to set his motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment for a hearin g. By order dated September 1, 2020, we requested a response. Both real party an d respondent filed responses informing the Court that the matter had been set for a hearing, and as a result, these original proceedings are moot.–2– When, as here, a court cannot take any action that can effect t he requested relief, and thus the order will ha ve no practical result, the c ourt should dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See Dow Chem. Co. v Garcia , 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (directing tr ial courts to vacate severanc e orders would have no effect, thus, mandamus proceeding was moot); see also In re Gill , 2005 WL 120881, * 1 (Tex. App—Texarkana 2205, orig. proceeding) (becaus e trial court set matter for hearing as requested , mandamus relief sought was moo t). Because the respondent has set the matter for a hearing, these original pro ceedings are moot. Accordingly, we dismiss th ese original proceedings.

200627F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Leanna CAVANAUGH; Harvey Ulm, Jr., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. MCCORDS TOYOTA OF VANCOUVER; Marv Mccord, Sr., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-36134.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 3, 2004.*

Decided March 24, 2004.

Mary A. Betker, Esq., Betker Law Firm, PC, Vancouver, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Stephanie Bloomfield, Gordon & Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson, Tacoma, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Harvey Ulm appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his hostile-workplace sexual harassment and retaliation claims. We affirm.

The district court properly considered all of the admissible evidence in granting summary judgment, and did not render its decision uncertain or incorrect by using *986the word ‘appear.’ The defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent sexually harassing behavior and acted promptly to correct it. *See Faragher v.*City *of Boca Raton,*524 U.S. 775, 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998); *Glasgow v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.,*103 Wash.2d 401, 406-07, 693 P.2d 708 (1985). The defendants’ corrective action ended the harassment. *See Ellison v. Brady,*924 F.2d 872, 882 (9th Cir.1991); *Glasgow,*103 Wash.2d at 407, 693 P.2d 708.

Ulm failed to show that his participation in protected activity was causally linked to the allegedly adverse employment action. *See Payne v. Norwest Corp.,*113 F.3d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir.1997); *Delahunty v. Cahoon,*66 Wash.App. 829, 839, 832 P.2d 1378 (1992). In addition, Ulm did not establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ legitimate reason for the allegedly adverse action was a pretext for retaliation. *See Brooks v. City of San Mateo,*229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2000); *Chen v. State of Washington,*86 Wash.App. 183, 189-90, 937 P.2d 612 (1997).

By failing to respond to the district court’s order to show cause why his action should not be consolidated with another case, Ulm waived this claim. *See Int’l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union No. 20 v. Martin Jaska, Inc.,*752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1985).

The grant of summary judgment before the completion of discovery was proper because Ulm did not make a timely Rule 56(f) application, and did not specifically identify relevant information he could obtain from discovery that would have precluded summary judgment. *See State of California v. Campbell,*138 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir.1998); *VISA Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of America,*784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4391

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 1995, and to amend the Shipping

Act of 1984 to require that conference agreements authorize members of conferences to take certain independent actions and to prohibit conferences and groups of

common carriers from denying or limiting in export foreign commerce compensation to ocean freight forwarders.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Maritime

5 Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995’’.
2

•HR 4391 EH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal

3 Maritime Commission, $18,900,000 for fiscal year 1995.

4 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT ACTION.

5 Section 5(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.

6 App. 1704(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (8) and

7 inserting the following:

8 ‘‘(8) provide that—

9 ‘‘(A) any member of the conference may

10 take independent action on any rate, service

11 item, or level of ocean freight forwarder com12 pensation required to be filed in a tariff under

13 section 8(a) upon not more than 10 calendar

14 days notice to the conference; and

15 ‘‘(B) the conference will include the new

16 rate, service item, or level of ocean freight for17 warder compensation in its tariff for use by

18 that member, effective no later than 10 cal19 endar days after receipt of the notice, and by

20 any other member that notifies the conference

21 that it elects to adopt the independent rate,

22 service item, or level of ocean freight forwarder

23 compensation on or after its effective date, in

24 lieu of the existing conference tariff provision

25 for that rate, service item, or level of ocean

26 freight forwarder compensation.’’.
3

•HR 4391 EH

1 SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON DENYING COMPENSATION.

2 Section 10(c) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.

3 App. 1709(c)), is amended by striking paragraph (5) and

4 inserting the following:

5 ‘‘(5) deny in the export foreign commerce of the

6 United States compensation to an ocean freight for7 warder, or limit that compensation to less than 1.25

8 percent of the aggregate of all of the rates and

9 charges applicable under the tariff assessed against

10 the cargo on which the forwarding services are pro11 vided; or’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 12,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4391

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Mariforwarders. eign commerce compensation to ocean freight carriers from denying or limiting in export for- to prohibit conferences and groups of common ferences to take certain independent actions and conference agreements authorize members of con- amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to require that time Commission for fiscal year 1995, and to
No. 11-151.

#### Padilla *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 101.535 Geographic partitioning and spectrum aggregation/disaggregation. ( a ) *Eligibility.* (1) 24 GHz licensees may apply to the Commission to partition their licensed geographic service areas to eligible entities and are free to determine the portion of their service areas to be partitioned. 24 GHz licensees may aggregate or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant of a license. ( 2 ) Any existing frequency coordination agreements shall convey with the assignment of the geographic area or spectrum, and shall remain in effect unless new agreements are reached.
( b ) *Technical standards* — ( 1 ) *Aggregation.* There is no limitation on the amount of spectrum that a 24 GHz licensee may aggregate.
( 2 ) *Partitioning.* In the case of partitioning, applicants and licensees must file FCC Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948 of this chapter and list the partitioned service area on a schedule to the application. The geographic coordinates must be specified in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest second of latitude and longitude and must be based upon the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83).
( 3 ) *Disaggregation.* Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount. A licensee need not retain a minimum amount of spectrum.
( 4 ) *Combined partitioning and disaggregation.* The Commission will consider requests for partial assignment of licenses that propose combinations of partitioning and disaggregation.
( c ) *License term.* The license term for a partitioned license area and for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the original licensee's license term as provided for in § 101.526.
[65 FR 59361, Oct. 5, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 46379, July 9, 2002; 82 FR 41549, Sept. 1, 2017]
JARRETT B. PERLOW

CLERK OF COURT

CLERK’S OFFICE

202-275-8000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439 

July 1, 2023

Notice Establishing Rates for Taxation of Costs

Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 39(c), the Clerk of Court has set the following 

maximum rates at which costs may be taxed in a case with this court: 

COST TYPE ALLOWABLE COST

(I.E., MAXIMUM RATE)

Principal Brief $0.08 per page

Reply Brief 

(including response and reply brief of 

appellant in a cross-appeal)

$0.08 per page

Appendix 

(including any authorized separate or 

supplemental appendix)

$0.08 per page

Binding and Covers $2.00 per required 

paper copy

Docketing Fee 

(if paid in this court by appellant or 

petitioner only) 

$500.00 total

These rates are unchanged for those in effect before the court’s July 1, 2020 

amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules.

This notice is posted publicly on the court’s website in accordance with Federal 

Circuit Rule 39(c).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         2,458
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  75,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,480
<INVENTORY>                                    23,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,867
<PP&E>                                         78,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                 28,575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 301,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,922
<BONDS>                                        311,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       145
<OTHER-SE>                                     (142,777)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   301,065
<SALES>                                        61,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               206,697
<CGS>                                          44,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             19,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (26,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,399)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.90)



</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"19-1885: MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC. v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0BaCr1HewZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-19-1885-mark-dunning-industries-inc-v-us-rule-36-judgment-19-1885-rule_36_judgment-10-19-2020_1671352\/\">19-1885: MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC. v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-19-2020-19-1885-mark-dunning-industries-inc-v-us-rule-36-judgment-19-1885-rule_36_judgment-10-19-2020_1671352\/embed\/#?secret=0BaCr1HewZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-1885: MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC. v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"0BaCr1HewZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC. v. US [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-1885 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-3 (SEC File Nos. 333-123401 and 333-115033), and on Form S-8 (SECFile Nos. 333-108672 and 333-108673) of Elixir Gaming Technologies, Inc.(formerly VendingData Corporation) of our report dated March 23, 2007, exceptfor Note 3, as to which  the date is October12, 2007, included in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 
| /s/ Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |
| Las Vegas, Nevada                   |
|                                |
| November 12, 2007                   |

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **77 0**  **2**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. MARCEL BARNES, a/k/a Larry Kevin Brown , Defendant

- Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk

. R ebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 2: 9 4

- c r - 0 00 5 2

- RB S

- 3 )

Submitted : June 9, 2010 Decided: July 1 9 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published pe r curiam opinion

.

Marcel Barnes , Appellant Pro Se
. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney , Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marcel Barnes appeals the dist rict court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We affirm. Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may reduce the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced

. . . based on a sentencing ran ge that has subsequently been lowered . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S. Sentencing Commission Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (200 9 ). Further, “[a] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under . . .
§ 3582(c)(2) if . . . an amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s appl icable guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. A defendant may obtain relief under § 3582(c)(2) only if an amendment to the sentencing guidelines has lo wered the defendant’s advisory g uidelines range. Barnes was therefore not entitled to relie f under § 3582(c)(2) based on his claims that his criminal history points were incorrectly tallied and that his sentence violated the rules of Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38 (2007), United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and other cases.3 Barnes maintained that under Amendment 709 of the Guidelines, a misdemeanor conviction for assault on a female, for which he received one criminal history point, would now not be counted, placing him in a lower crimi nal history category. Amendment 709, which addressed in part whether and when certain misdemeanor and petty offenses are included in the criminal history score, does not apply retroactively

. S ee USSG § 1B1.10(c), p.s. Therefore, Barnes was not entitled to a reduction based on Amendment 709.

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2

             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 on Form 10- Q/A (No. 1) of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period September
30th, 2010 (the "Report"), Praveen Nair, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1). To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                                       DATE: MARCH 31st, 2011

                                                       /S/ PRAVEEN NAIR
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       PRAVEEN NAIR
                                                       CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4353 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4353

  To require businesses who compile consumer lists for sale to other 
  businesses to notify consumers on the list of the sales of the list.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 1994

  Mr. Gallo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require businesses who compile consumer lists for sale to other 
  businesses to notify consumers on the list of the sales of the list.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Information Privacy Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSUMER LISTS.

    Any person engaged in business in commerce who compiles a list of 
the persons to whom such person make sales or with whom such person 
otherwise does business which consists of their names, addresses, 
telephone numbers, and other personal information for the purpose of 
selling such list shall notify the persons included in the list of the 
potential sale of the list. A notified person may require the person 
selling a list to delete such information respecting the notified 
person as such person specifies.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

    Compliance with the requirements of section 2 shall be enforced 
under the Federal Trade Commission Act by the Federal Trade Commission. 
A violation of any requirement under section 2 shall constitute an 
unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce in violation of section 
5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and shall be subject to 
enforcement under section 5(b) of such Act irrespective of whether the 
person who committed such violation is engaged in commerce or meets any 
other jurisdictional test in such Act. The Federal Trade Commission 
shall have such procedural, investigative, and enforcement powers in 
enforcing compliance with the requirements of section 2 and may require 
the filing of reports, the production of documents, and the appearance 
of witnesses as though the applicable terms of such Act were part of 
this section.

                                 <all>
```