alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20354 Summary Calendar

BRUCE A. ROGERS , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
SHAWNA TALBOT BOATRIGHT, Supervisor, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

- Correctional Institution Division; JOSE L. GARCIA, JR., Transportation Driver, Security; HERBERT J. GARCIA, Transportation Driver, Security; JOEL GARCIA , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10

- CV

- 1058

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Bruce A. Rogers, Texas prisoner # 566928, has appealed the district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (6) to reopen this civil rights lawsuit, which was voluntarily dismissed on Rogers’s motion. Rogers contends that he has shown that he was prevented from

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20354 Document: 00513725179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016No. 15

- 20354

2 pursuing his civil rights claims by circumstances related to an illness and that the defendants have not shown that they will be prejudiced if his lawsuit is reopened. He argues that he should be permitted to proceed with his civil rights claims in the interests of justice. Under Rule 60(b)(6), a cour t may relieve a party from a final judgment for “ any other reason that justifies relief. ” F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b)(6). Such a motion must be made “‘ within a reasonable time, ’ unless good cause can be shown for delay. ” In re Osborne , 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting
F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(c)(1)). A Rule 60(b)(6) motion will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church , 727 F.3d 356, 363 (5th Cir. 2013). “Accordingly, Rule 60(b)(6) requires a showing of manifest injus tice and will not be used to relieve a party from the free, calculated, and deliberate choices he has made.” Id. ( internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “ Rule 60(b)(6) should not be used to undo the damage done by a poor strategic decision .” Id

. At most, Rogers’s illness provide s good cause excusing his 14

- month delay in moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Rogers has not shown that the district court ’s denial of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion will result in a manifest injustice. See id. Extra ordinary circumstances requiring relief under Rule 60(b)(6) are not present and have not been shown. See id. The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-20354 Document: 00513725179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 63749.

protests 107000-K, etc. (New York).

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

              Statement Regarding Computation of Earnings per Share

                                                                   Three Months
                                                                          Ended
                                                                        1-31-98

Net Earnings (in thousands)                                           $     138

Primary earnings per share:
    Weighted average shares outstanding                                 859,625
    Less unearned employee stock ownership plan shares                  (61,893)

    Average option shares granted                                             0

    Less assumed purchase of shares using treasury method                     0

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding                         793,147
                                                                      ---------

Earnings per common share - primary                                   $    0.17
                                                                      ---------

Fully - diluted earnings per share:
    Weighted average shares outstanding                                 859,625
    Less unearned employee stock ownership plan shares                  (61,893)

    Average option shares granted                                             0

    Less assumed purchase of shares using treasury method                     0

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding                         793,147
                                                                      ---------

Earnings per common share - fully diluted                             $    0.17
                                                                      ---------
















                                       17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 28,
1998 CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                          48,226
<SECURITIES>                                    67,359
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,350
<INVENTORY>                                      5,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,163
<PP&E>                                          12,296
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           327
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,459
<SALES>                                         25,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,556
<CGS>                                            7,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,648)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,560
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,210
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,350
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
1

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 29, 2011

SUBJECT: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Fluopyram Registration

(PC Code 080302; DP Barcodes 353315, 369756, and 385637)

FROM: Mohammed Ruhman, Fate Scientist

Amanda Solliday, Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch V

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

THROUGH: Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO: Lisa Jones, Risk Manager Reviewer

Shaja Joyner, Risk Manager, RM 20

Fungicide Branch

Registration Division (7505P)

As part of the new chemical registration for the fungicide fluopyram, this risk assessment 

provides an overview of what is currently known about the potential environmental fate and 

ecological effects associated with the proposed uses of fluopyram (see attached document).
Exhibit
      32.2





AEROCENTURY
      CORP.





CERTIFICATION








In
      connection with this quarterly report of AeroCentury
      Corp. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Toni M. Perazzo, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
      for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
      that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




**COMPANY
              NAME CORPORATION**Date: November
              13, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Toni
              M.
              PerazzoTitle: 
              Senior Vice President, Finance & Chief Financial
              Officer
From: drzendejas@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Richard Zendejas

Hesperia, CA 92345
From: larrys@faithwf.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:10:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Larry Shields

Wichita Falls, TX 76308
From: gordonm@keystonefinishing.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:00:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gordon MacDonald

Folcroft, PA 19032
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1459 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 220
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1459

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 550 West Fort Street in Boise, Idaho, as the ``James A. McClure 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2001

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Craig) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                            November 8, 2001

              Reported by Mr. Jeffords, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 550 West Fort Street in Boise, Idaho, as the ``James A. McClure 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JAMES A. MCCLURE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED 
              STATES COURTHOUSE.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 550 
West Fort Street in Boise, Idaho, shall be known and designated as the 
``James A. McClure Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the James A. McClure Federal Building and United States Courthouse.

                                                       Calendar No. 220

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1459

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 550 West Fort Street in Boise, Idaho, as the ``James A. McClure 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 8, 2001

                       Reported without amendment
```
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

May 18, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10810

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL LAWRENCE MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:03-CR-226-ALL-A)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Michael Lawrence Miller, a correctional

officer with the Bureau of Prisons, was convicted by a jury of

aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a ward, and abusive sexual

contact. He was sentenced to a total of 150 months in prison and

four years of supervised release.

Counsel has not adequately briefed the claim that the evidence

was insufficient to support Miller’s conviction. He was convicted

of committing the above-listed crimes, but counsel has failed even2

to recite the elements of each offense and how the evidence

purportedly failed to support each element. Counsel’s argument

contains no citation to the record and no substantive “argument” on

the issue of the insufficiency of the evidence; rather, it consists

of nothing more than conclusional assertions. S ee Brinkmann v.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner

, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987). Thus, Miller’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

to support his convictions is deemed abandoned on appeal. See

Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Miller claims that his legal representation was ineffective at

trial because his counsel suffered from a serious medical

disability that interfered with his ability to conduct

comprehensive, tho rough cross-examination of the witnesses. As

this is not one of those rare c ases in which the record is

sufficiently developed to allow this court to evaluate the merits

of Miller’s ineffectiveness claim, we decline to address it here.

See Uni ted States v. Navejar , 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992).

Miller may pursue his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in

a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
From: bikeandflight@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:31:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Charles Weaver

Saginaw, MI 48603