alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BECK, formerly known as David Wayne Beck, Appellant, v. Erik SKON; David Crist; Dr. Christopher Ceman, Appellees.

No. 03-2129.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Beck, Stillwater, MN, pro se.

Kari Josephine Ferguson, Jennifer A. Service, Attorney General’s Office, Kelly L. Hanson, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, Carolin J. Nearing, Geraghty *&*O’Loughlin, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate “Reverend Beck” (formerly known as David Wayne Vander-beck) appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO). We affirm.

Beck filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials, claiming they violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants on all but one claim, i.e., that officials conditioned needed surgery on his execution of a release of liability. As to that claim, we remanded for further development of the record. *See Beck v. Skon,*253 F.3d 330, 334 (8th Cir. 2001). On remand, Beck filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and TRO, and for “a three-judge court,” requesting the district court to stop defendants from harassing him, denying him proper placements, denying him proper medical treatment, denying him necessary legal documents, and placing him at further risk of assault. The district court denied the motion.

We have jurisdiction to review the denial of injunctive relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and “we will reverse only for dearly erroneous factual determinations, an error of law, or abuse of discretion,” see *Manion v. Nagin,*255 F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir.2001). There is no basis for reversal here. *See Davis v. Francis Howell Sch.*
      *195
      *Dist.,*104 F.3d 204, 205 (8th Cir.1997) (factors to determine whether injunctive relief is warranted). To the extent Beck asserted in his motion that he is being denied the opportunity to litigate the claim at issue on remand, there are avenues by which he can seek specific documents and depositions necessary to litigate the relevant claim. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a), 56(f). Beck’s remaining bases for injunctive relief are not within the scope of the remand order. *Cf. Children’s Broadcasting Corp. v. Walt Disney Co.,*357 F.3d 860, 2004 WL 111806, at **8*(8th Cir. Jan.26, 2004) (liability question was beyond scope of limited remand for new trial on damages).

Accordingly, we affirm.

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Exhibit 31.2


CERTIFICATION


I, Stephen R. Scherger certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Graphic Packaging International, LLC; and


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.








/s/ Stephen R. SchergerStephen R SchergerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)April 26, 2019
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
No. 10-11001.

#### Aglipay *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-8632.

#### Nichols *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5163.

#### Shavers *v.*Bauman et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
093A15

#### Town of Boone v. State of North Carolina and County of Watauga

1. Pit’s Motion to Supplement the Record with Final Judgment of Three-Judge Panel

1. Special Order

2. Pit’s Motion to Expedite Settlement of Record on Appeal

2. Special Order

3. Pit’s Motion to Submit the Case for Oral Argument Under the Summary Judgment Standard

3. Special Order
{"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":"Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and Electronic Filing Procedures - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iNR49Ev5e7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/updated-federal-circuit-rules-of-practice-and-electronic-filing-procedures\/\">Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and Electronic Filing Procedures<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/updated-federal-circuit-rules-of-practice-and-electronic-filing-procedures\/embed\/#?secret=iNR49Ev5e7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and Electronic Filing Procedures” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"iNR49Ev5e7\" 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":"The new edition of the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice is available on the court\u2019s website (pdf).\u00a0 The Electronic Filing Procedures have also been updated regarding revised procedures for briefs and appendices.\u00a0 These procedures are available on the court\u2019s website (pdf)."}
No. 11-8710.

#### Lopez *v.*Robinson, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 5.105 Authorized bandwidth.

The occupied bandwidth of transmitted emissions from an Experimental Radio Service station shall not exceed the authorized bandwidth specified in the authorization. Each authorization will show, as the prefix to the emission classification, a figure specifying the necessary bandwidth. The application may request an authorized bandwidth that is greater than the necessary bandwidth for the emission to be used, if required for the experimental purpose. Necessary bandwidth and occupied bandwidth are defined and determined in accordance with § 2.1 and § 2.202 of this chapter.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K 

OF PINNACLE DATASYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certificationaccompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Issuer for the annual period ended December 31, 2006. 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certifythat the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained inthe Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

This certification is executed as of March 30, 2007.
No. 10-10831.

#### Herman *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 15.603 Definitions. ( a ) *Excluded Band:* A band of frequencies within which Access BPL operations are not permitted.
( b ) *Exclusion Zone:* A geographical area within which Access BPL operations are not permitted in certain frequency bands.
( c ) *Consultation.* The process of communication between an entity operating Access BPL and a licensed public safety or other designated point of contact for the purpose of avoiding potential harmful interference.
( d ) *Consultation area:* A designated geographical area within which consultation with public safety users or other designated point of contact is required before an Access BPL may be operated at designated frequencies.
( e ) *Low Voltage power line.* A power line carrying low voltage, e.g., 240/120 volts from a distribution transformer to a customer's premises.
( f ) *Medium Voltage power line.* A power line carrying between 1,000 to 40,000 volts from a power substation to neighborhoods. Medium voltage lines may be overhead or underground, depending on the power grid network topology.
( g ) *Access BPL Database.* A database operated by an industry-sponsored entity, recognized by the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), containing information regarding existing and planned Access BPL systems, as required in § 15.615(a) of this chapter.
#### Carl J. Baumgartner, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. The Hearn Construction Company, a corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

143 So. 289.

Division A.

Opinion filed September 30, 1932.

*James Boy all,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Milam, Mcllvaine Milam,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

The defendant in error was plaintiff in the court belotv in a suit to enforce the payment by the defendant, plaintiff in error here, to' the plaintiff, defendant in error here, of a sum of money alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendant for work done and material furn*868ished in the construction of an apartment house by the plaintiff for the defendant.

The record shows that the original contract between the parties was a verbal *contract;*that when about 80 per cent, of the work was completed the owner, defendant in the court below, appeared to find it hard to arrange his finances so as to pay the contractor and thereupon a written agreement was entered into under which the amounts due froln the defendant to the plaintiff, that is from the owner to the contractor, were agreed upon and the owner then and therein agreed to secure the balance due from him to the contractor by a certain mortgage on the building and lot, which mortgage was to mature eight years after date.

When the building was co'mpleted the owner failed and refused to execute the mortgage in accordance with the terms of his agreement. After some delay, the contractor filed suit to enforce the payment, relying upon his initial contract and parol agreements as a basis for his recovery.

During the course of the trial the written contract was introduced for the purpose of showing the amounts agreed upon between the parties which was and would be due from the owner to the contractor upon the completion of the work. The contract was admitted in evidence to show the admissions on the part of the owner that the contentions of the contractor as to the amounts due were correct. Hazen vs. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 Sou. 853.

The agreement for the mortgage was admissible in evidence for the purposes for which it was offered.

The record discloses no reversible error and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

Wi-iitfield, P.J. and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20643

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO REVILLA-GUEVARA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-194-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Revilla-Guevara has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Revilla-Guevara has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Revilla-Guevara’s claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 

 

* 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

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20643 Document: 00513721822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 15-20643

2

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 

841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Revilla-Guevara’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

Revilla-Guevara’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is 

DENIED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-20643 Document: 00513721822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
§ 61.46 Adjustments to the API. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, in connection with any price cap tariff filing proposing rate changes, the price cap local exchange carrier must calculate an API for each affected basket pursuant to the following methodology: APIt = APIt-1[Σi vi (Pt/Pt-1)i] Where: APIt = the proposed API value, APIt-1 = the existing API value, Pt = the proposed price for rate element “i,” Pt-1 = the existing price for rate element “i,” and vi = the current estimated revenue weight for rate element “i,” calculated as the ratio of the base period demand for the rate element “i” priced at the existing rate, to the base period demand for the entire basket of services priced at existing rates.
( b ) New services subject to price cap regulation must be included in the appropriate API calculations under paragraph (a) of this section beginning at the first annual price cap tariff filing following completion of the base period in which they are introduced. This index adjustment requires that the demand for the new service during the base period must be included in determining the weights used in calculating the API.
( c ) Any price cap tariff filing proposing rate restructuring shall require an adjustment to the API pursuant to the general methodology described in paragraph (a) of this section. This adjustment requires the conversion of existing rates into rates of equivalent value under the proposed structure, and then the comparison of the existing rates that have been converted to reflect restructuring to the proposed restructured rates. This calculation may require use of carrier data and estimation techniques to assign customers of the preexisting service to those services (including the new restructured service) that will remain or become available after restructuring.
( d ) The maximum allowable carrier common line (CCL) revenue shall be computed pursuant to the following methodology: CCL = CMT−EUCL−Interstate Access Universal Service Support Mechanism Per Line−PICC Where: CMT = Price Cap CMT Revenue as defined in § 61.3(cc). EUCL = Maximum allowable EUCL rates established pursuant to § 69.152 of this chapter multiplied by base period lines. Interstate Access Universal Service Support Per Line = the amount as determined by the Administrator pursuant to § 54.807 of this chapter times the number of base period lines for each customer class and zone receiving Interstate Access Universal Service support pursuant to part 54, subpart J. PICC = Maximum allowable PICC rates established pursuant to § 69.153 of this chapter multiplied by base period lines.
( e ) In no case shall a price cap local exchange carrier include data associated with services offered pursuant to contract tariff in the calculations required by this section.
[65 FR 38698, June 21, 2000; 65 FR 57741, 57742, Sept. 26, 2000; 76 FR 43214, July 20, 2011]
#### § 302-2.10 If I am furloughed to perform active military duty, will I have to complete all aspects of the relocation within the time limitation?

No, if you are furloughed to perform active military duty, the 1-year period to complete all aspects of relocation is exclusive of time spent on furlough for active military service.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18336, Apr. 1, 2011. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49644, Aug. 21, 2014]
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

| |  |                                                                                                                          
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer 
3 Aminadav st.
Tel-Aviv 67067, Israel
Tel: 972 (3)6232525
Fax: 972 (3)5622555
www.ey.com/il

Board of Directors
Lumenis Ltd.
Yokneam, Israel

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement (333-148460) on Form S-8 of
Lumenis Ltd., of our report dated June 30, 2009 with respect to the consolidated
balance sheet of Lumenis Ltd. as of December 31, 2008 and the related consolidated
statement of operations, changes in shareholders equity (deficiency) and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 2008, which report appears in the annual report on
Form 20-F of Lumenis Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

| |  | /s/Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererKOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERA Member of Ernst & Young Global
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tel Aviv, Israel
June 30, 2009



---

---
No. 10-11149.

#### Wallace *v.*Lawler, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 61.13 Scope. ( a ) All issuing carriers that file tariffs are required to file tariff publications electronically, if practicable.
( b ) All tariff publications shall be filed in a manner that is compatible and consistent with the technical requirements of the Electronic Tariff Filing System.
( c ) Tariff publications which must be filed in hard copy format should be submitted according to the procedures set forth on the web page of the FCC's Office of the Secretary, *https://www.fcc.gov/secretary*.
[83 FR 2557, Jan. 18, 2018]
{"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":"2018-1696: Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vk1Q32UsaE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-1696-duke-university-v-biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1696: Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-1696-duke-university-v-biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=vk1Q32UsaE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1696: Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"vk1Q32UsaE\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1696 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
# iCollege Professors McGibbon and Hurley Publications Out Soon

/ Published Aug. 23, 2013

Double Congratuations to iCollege visiting professor, Mark McGibbon, who had a chapter published in the book "The Process Enneagram: Essays on Theory and Practice," edited by Richard N. Knowles, and published byEmergent Publications on Litchfield Park, AZ.  In addition, Mark andfellow professor John Hurley also just received word from the Chief Editor of "CrossTalk Magazine" that their article on "The Transformationof Software Engineering Security" will be published in the Jan/Feb edition.  Great job!
No. 11-5389.

#### Praileau *v.*Hoye, Acting Judge, Schenectady County Court, et al.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11246.

#### Clemons *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5442.

#### Robey *v.*Butts, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.