alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00206-CV

____________________

GEERT VISSER AND GLOBAL MARINE TRANSPORT, INC., Appellants

V.

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-06-07372-CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Geert Visser and Global Marine Transport, Inc. appealed from a judgment 

signed May 2, 2018. On July 2, 2018, we notified the parties that the clerk’s record 

had not been filed due to the appellants’ failure to pay or, to arrange to pay the 

District Clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. Further, the notice warned the 

appellants that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless they

established that the fee had been paid or additional time was needed. On August 10, 

2018, we notified the appellants that the appeal would be dismissed for want of 
2

prosecution unless they filed a suggestion of bankruptcy that complies with Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.1 on or before August 20, 2018. No response has been 

filed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 37.3(b); see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on September 26, 2018

Opinion Delivered September 27, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2925

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota

Darryl Burton, *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 7, 1998

 Filed: January 21, 1999 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Darryl Burton appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for

the District of Minnesota denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion for the return of

property. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.

Burton was arrested in connection with a drug transaction, pleaded guilty, and

was sentenced. Burton subsequently moved for the return of $22,072 that Minneapolis

Police Department (MPD) officers had taken in the search of an apartment pursuant

to a state warrant. The federal government responded that it never had custody of the
-2-

money, and submitted a news release which stated that an MPD officer had pleaded

guilty to embezzling over $300,000 of drug-seizure money that he had signed out of

the MPD property room during a four-year period. Burton argued that the

government’s response implicitly conceded that this MPD officer had taken Burton’s

money and that it was part of the $300,000 at issue in this officer’s federal prosecution.

The district court denied Burton’s Rule 41(e) motion, concluding that the federal

government could not be held responsible for returning Burton’s property if it lacked

custody of the property. Burton then requested that his underlying criminal case be

dismissed if the evidence upon which his guilty plea was based was not in the federal

prosecutor’s possession.

We conclude that Burton could not collaterally attack the validity of his guilty

plea in his Rule 41(e) motion. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e) (after sentencing, pleas may

be set aside only on direct appeal or by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). 

We also conclude, however, that the district court improperly denied Burton’s

Rule 41(e) motion without receiving evidence to determine who had custody or

possession of the subject property. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) (court shall receive

evidence on any issue of fact necessary to decision of motion); Rufu v. United States,

20 F.3d 63, 65-66 (2d Cir. 1994) (remanding case where district court did not receive

evidence showing what property was seized and how property was disposed of).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in the district court

consistent with this opinion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2470 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2470

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
    19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, as the 
       ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT COMMANDER ROY H. BOEHM POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. 
Boehm Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                          12,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    140,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               295,247
<PP&E>                                          39,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 429,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,830
<BONDS>                                        175,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           50,490
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (69,911)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   429,665
<SALES>                                        148,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,164
<CGS>                                          112,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,079)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (116.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (116.99)


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2356 

To amend section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to require each State educational agency receiving assistance 

under part A of title I of such Act to consider a teacher highly qualified 

if the teacher is (or was) highly qualified in at least 1 other State 

and has at least 5 years of teaching experience. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2009 

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 to require each State educational 

agency receiving assistance under part A of title I of 

such Act to consider a teacher highly qualified if the 

teacher is (or was) highly qualified in at least 1 other 

State and has at least 5 years of teaching experience. 

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 The Act may be cited as the ‘‘Educators Achieving 

5 Reciprocity Now (E.A.R.N.) Act’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2356 IH

1 SEC. 2. TEACHER RECIPROCITY. 

2 Section 1119(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 

3 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6319(a)) is amended 

4 by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(4) TEACHER RECIPROCITY.—Beginning with 

6 the first day of the first school year after the date 

7 of the enactment of the Educators Achieving Reci8 procity Now (E.A.R.N.) Act, each State educational 

9 agency receiving assistance under this part shall en10 sure that a teacher is considered highly qualified 

11 with respect to an academic subject without requir12 ing any further actions, if the teacher— 

13 ‘‘(A) is (or was) considered highly qualified 

14 in such academic subject in at least 1 other 

15 State; and 

16 ‘‘(B) has been teaching for at least 5 years 

17 in a public or private school.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2228]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 16, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act o 1993, 15 
U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Apple 
Computer, Cupertino, CA; Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; University 
Koblenz-Landau, Mainz, GERMANY; and Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family 
National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH, Boston, MA have been 
added as parties to this venture. Also, Tribal Education Ltd., 
Sheffield, UNITED KINGDOM; WebCT, Lynnfield, MA; Centre for Research 
and Technology Hellas (CERTH), Thermi, Thessaloniki, GREECE; University 
of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA; Ufi Limited, Sheffield, UNITED 
KINGDOM; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; 
Convergys, San Francisco, CA; and Stanford University, Stanford, CA 
have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 
55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 26, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on February 12, 2007 (72 FR 6577).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-2228 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI,

Defendant.

STIPULATION TO

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS

_____________________________

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for 

the defendant and the defendant that attorney PAUL J. STABLEIN, shall be 

substituted as the retained attorney for Defendant, PAUL NICOLETTI, in the place 

of JAMES C. HOWARTH, in the above-captioned matter.

/s/James C. Howarth – with permission/PJS

Law Offices of James C. Howarth

615 Griswold St Ste 820

Detroit, MI 48226-3983

(313) 963-1455

James-Howarth@att.net

/s/Paul Stablein

Paul Stablein

Paul Stablein, PLLC

380 N. Old Woodward Avenue

Suite 320

Birmingham, MI 48009

(248) 540-1600

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 137 filed 05/20/19 PageID.1308 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI,

Defendant.

ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS

Upon reading and filing the above Stipulation, and the Court being fully 

advised in the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PAUL J. STABLEIN, shall be substituted in 

the place of JAMES C. HOWARTH, as Attorney for Defendant, PAUL 

NICOLETTI, in the above cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Victoria A. Roberts

The Honorable Victoria Roberts

United States District Court Judge

Entered: 5/20/19

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 137 filed 05/20/19 PageID.1309 Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending May 19, 2007

|Filer                            | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                                 
|-------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC. | * 3A1          | Citizens Community Bancorp Inc., to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Citizens Community Bank both of Ridgewood, New Jersey. | Newspaper:06/09/2007Federal Register:06/07/2007       
|Newspaper:                       | 06/09/2007    
|Federal Register:                | 06/07/2007    
|INTESA SANPAOLO S.P.A.           | FBSEA          | Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., Turin, Italy, to retain the federally licensed branch of former Sanpoalo IMI, S.p.A., in New York, New York.   | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                       | Not available 
|Federal Register:                | Not applicable
|ORANGE COUNTY BANCORP            | * 3A1          | Orange County Bancorp, Inc., to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Orange County Trust Company, both of Middletown, New York. | Newspaper:05/26/2007Federal Register:05/21/2007       
|Newspaper:                       | 05/26/2007    
|Federal Register:                | 05/21/2007    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
* 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 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50424 Summary Calendar

LEVI WOODERTS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHERI TALLEY, Doctor; JOSEPH CASAL; LANNETTE LINTHICUM, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 4:03-CV-48

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Levi Wooderts, Jr., formerly Texas prisoner # 549210 and now federal prisoner # 29639-077, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in favor of Dr. Sheri Talley and dismissing his claims against Joseph Casal and Lannette Linthicum for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Wooderts has briefed no claim of error with respect to the dismissal of his claims against Casal and Linthicum. Any argument of error regarding the dismissal of his claims againstNo. 05-50424 -2- those defendants is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Wooderts argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Talley with respect to his claim that she was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Wooderts has failed to show that Talley was deliberately indifferent however. Absent exceptional circumstances, his disagreement with her specific courses of treatment is insufficient to raise a viable claim under § 1983. Banuelos v. McFarland , 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 , 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Wooderts also argues that the district court erred by refusing to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, after he timely filed objections thereto. Wooderts is correct that his objections were timely filed and that de novo review was thus triggered. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED . R. CIV. P. 6(a). However, Wooderts has not demonstrated reversible error, as he has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the lack of de

novo review by the district court. See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A., de C.V. , 22 F.3d 634, 646-47 (5th Cir. 1994). Wooderts last argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to compel discovery. “The district court need not allow any discovery unless it finds that plaintiff has supported his claim with sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality of defendant’s conduct at theNo. 05-50424 -3- time of the alleged acts.” Schultea v. Wood , 47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Wooderts did not meet that initial burden; therefore, the district court’s discovery ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Gomez v. St. Jude Med. Daig Div. Inc. , 442 F.3d 919, 927 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.
§ 35.03-5 Approved types of work vests—TB/ALL. ( a ) Each buoyant work vest carried under the permissive authority of this section must be approved under— ( 1 ) Subpart 160.053 of this chapter; or
( 2 ) Subpart 160.077 of this chapter as a commercial hybrid PFD.
[CGD 78-174A, 51 FR 4350, Feb. 4, 1986]
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906
------------  of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Long Island  Financial  Corp.,  (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q for the  period  ended  June 30,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Douglas
C.  Manditch,  President  & Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  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/ Douglas C. Manditch
                                        -----------------------
                                        Douglas C. Manditch
                                        President & Chief Executive Officer
                                        August 14, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Long  Island  Financial  Corp.  and will be retained by Long Island
Financial  Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.



Exhibit 32.2  Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906
------------  of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Long Island  Financial  Corp.,  (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q for the  period  ended  June 30,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Thomas
Buonaiuto,  Vice President & Treasurer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  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/ Thomas Buonaiuto
                                        --------------------
                                        Thomas Buonaiuto
                                        Vice President & Treasurer
                                        August 14, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Long  Island  Financial  Corp.  and will be retained by Long Island
Financial  Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

CHRISTINA M. PASDEN,

 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 15-12128

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s “Opinion and Order (2) Overruling Plaintiff’s

Objection; (2) Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation; (3)

Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) Denying Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment” dated September 22, 2016,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Christina M. Pasden.

Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 22nd day of September 2016.

 DAVID J. WEAVER

 CLERK OF THE COURT

S/ Lisa Wagner 

By: Lisa Wagner, Case Manager

 to Judge Robert H. Cleland

2:15-cv-12128-RHC-APP Doc # 26 Filed 09/22/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 614
2:15-cv-12019-MFL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 28
2:15-cv-12019-MFL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 29
2:15-cv-12019-MFL-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 30