alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60332 S u m m ary C al en da r
W IL L IE A L T O N M A G E E , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. D U A N E D IL L O N , S h e r iff, D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he So ut he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi U SD C N o. 2: 03- C V

- 18

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L L Y , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h e j u dg m en tof

t h e di st ri ctcourti s af f i rm ed f or t h e f ol l ow i n g reasons: T h e pl ai n t i f

f, W i l l i e M cG ee, end u red a beati n g by other i n m ates on M arch 23, 200 3. H e h as n o dou bt suff ered as a resul t
. B u t h i s c om pl ai n tha s r eceived
c o ns i de r ab l e m e di c ala t t e nt i o n a nd e xt e ns ive j udi c i ale f f o r ta l s o . U po n t he f i ndi ng andc o nc l us i o ns o f t he m ag i s t r at e af

t e r a he ar i ng o n Apr i l1 3, 2 00 5, t he ju d g e d is m is s e d th e c la im s a g a in s t fiv e d e fe n d a n ts a n d p r o c e e d e d w ith th e cla im United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60332 S u m m ary C al en da r

2 o f i nt e nt i o nali ndi f

fe r e nc e t o pl ai nt i f

f ’ s m e di c alne e ds a ga i ns tShe r i f f D uane D i l l o n. Th e c l ai m agai nstSherif f D i l l on w entto a t w o dayt r i ali n F ebr uary 2008, f ol l ow ed byan adve r se r ec om m endat i on and t hen j u d gm en tdat ed M ar c h 28, 200 8. Th e j u dg m en tt h at pl ai n t i f f suf fere d noc o ns t it ut i o naldep rivati on becau se
n e ith e rS h e r iff D illo n n o rW a lth a ll C o u n tyw e r e d e lib e r a te lyin d iffe r e n t to h is
m e d ic a l n e e d s is s u p p o r te d b y th e e v id e n c e . A fte r h is inju r y , a n u r s e s a w h im th e fo ll o w i n g da y, an d then t h e nex tdayhe w as t ak en t o t h e hosp i t alt o see a do c t o r . I n t w o m o r e day s he ha d s ur ge r y. Tr e at m e nta nd m e di c at i o n f o l l o w e d. T h e r e is n o e v id e n c e o f c o n s c io u s in d iffe r e n c e . AF F I RMED.
No. 66217.

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/2099-11608 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 711 

Celebrating the 325th anniversary of the founding of the College of William 

& Mary in Virginia by British Royal Charter and congratulating President W. Taylor Reveley, III, after a decade of tremendous leadership 

as the 27th President of William & Mary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2018 

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself and Ms. TITUS) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the 325th anniversary of the founding of the 

College of William & Mary in Virginia by British Royal 

Charter and congratulating President W. Taylor Reveley, 

III, after a decade of tremendous leadership as the 27th 

President of William & Mary. 

Whereas, on February 8, 1693, King William III and Queen 

Mary II of England signed the charter for a ‘‘perpetual 

College of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other 

good Arts and Sciences’’ to be founded in the Virginia 

Colony, making William & Mary the Nation’s second-oldest college; 

Whereas William & Mary is considered the Alma Mater of the 

Nation because it educated Founding Fathers of the NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:30 Jan 22, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR711.IH HR711

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 711 IH 

tion, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, 

John Tyler, and James Monroe; 

Whereas William & Mary is a place of many firsts for the 

Nation, including the first United States institution with 

a Royal Charter, the first Greek-letter society (Phi Beta 

Kappa), the first student honor code, the first college to 

become a university, and the first law school in America; 

Whereas today, William & Mary functions as a comprehensive 

public research university, educating future leaders in 

areas of the arts and sciences, business, education, law, 

and marine science; 

Whereas William & Mary has been led tremendously for the 

last ten years by W. Taylor Reveley, III, William & 

Mary’s 27th President; and 

Whereas W. Taylor Reveley, III, has remarkably guided the 

Alma Mater of the Nation to a position where it continues to thrive and has markedly achieved success in 

many ways, including outstanding educational value, a 

commitment to public service, and a diverse and inclusive 

community: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives cele2 brates the 325th anniversary of the College of William & 

3 Mary’s Royal Charter and congratulates W. Taylor 

4 Reveley, III, on his retirement after a decade of selfless 

5 and steadfast service as the institution’s 27th President. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANGELA MARTIN : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

L.F. LAMBERT SPAWN CO., INC. : NO. 02-2754

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2003, it is Ordered that the final pretrial

conference in the above captioned case is RESCHEDULED to April 29, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. TRIAL will

commence on May 5, 2003.

ATTEST: or BY THE COURT

BY: 

 Carol D. James, Deputy Clerk MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

faxed from chambers 1/31/03:

Robin Gray, Esq.

Michael Moore, Esq.

Civ 12 (9/83)

Case 2:02-cv-02754-MAM Document 9 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 1 of 1
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 129

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2001, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 106–275, is further amended by striking
2

•HJ 129 EH

1 the date specified in section 106(c) and inserting ‘‘Decem2 ber 15, 2000’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 11,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 129

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.
Exhibit 32.1 

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) of Goodman Networks Incorporated (the “Company”), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Executive Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their 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, as amended; and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: March 31, 2014 |   | By:    |   | /s/ John A. Goodman     |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   | Name:  |   | John A. Goodman         |
|                 |   | Title: |   | Executive Chairman      |
|                 |   |   |   |                    |
| Date: March 31, 2014 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Randal S. Dumas     |
|                 |   | Name:  |   | Randal S. Dumas         |
|                 |   | Title: |   | Chief Financial Officer |

The foregoing certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Report and will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
(Reap. Dec. 10918)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 723820; 778073-1/4; 792547-1/3.

(Decided March 16, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seep).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (See. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> *5617. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Heilman, Appellant, *v.*Weylman.

*Appeals*— Statutory *period*— Appeal *talcen too late*— Dismissal—■ *Final decree.*

An appeal taken one day after the expiration of the statutory period of six months will be quashed.

A decree in equity, dismissing bill of complaint at the costs of the plaintiff, is a final decree from which an appeal will lie.

Argued April 15, 1924.

Appeal, No. 7, April T., 1923, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1919, No. 70, sitting in equity, dismissing bill in the case of Jessie R. Heilman v. H. H. Weylman.

Before Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, J J.

Appeal quashed.

Bill in equity for an accounting. Before King, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

The court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*G. E. Harrington,*and with him *H, A, Heilman,*for appellant.

*189
      *R. L.*Ralston, for appellee.

May 5, 1924:

Per Curiam,

Appellee moved to quash this appeal, as taken one day beyond the statutory period. Appellant then moved (1) to quash the appeal as taken prematurely, asserting that the decree appealed from was not final; (2) that the record be remitted with direction that the court below enter a final decree in accordance with Equity Rule 83.

The decree was as follows: “October 17, 1921, the exceptions, in the above entitled equity case, having been overruled, the nisi decree is now entered as the final decree in the cause, and the plaintiff’s bill of complaint is dismissed, at the costs of the plaintiff.” In the circumstances, we consider the words “the plaintiff’s bill of complaint is dismissed, at the costs of the plaintiff,” a final decree; appellant’s motion is therefore dismissed.

As appellant conceded the appeal was taken more than six months after the decree was entered, it was too late. Appeal quashed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                           8,224
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,803
<INVENTORY>                                     16,187
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,592
<PP&E>                                          63,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,766
<BONDS>                                         24,396
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,139
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,495
<SALES>                                        208,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,817
<CGS>                                          181,456
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,050
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (81)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (18)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (63)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (63)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02




</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10.1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
1998 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the following clarifying
amendment to the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the Plan); NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. Amendment. The first paragraph of Section 5.1 of the Plan is amended to read as
follows: 5.1 Limitations. The maximum number of shares that may be issued
hereunder shall be 220,000, subject to any antidilution adjustment which
may be required pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2 hereof. Any or
all shares of Stock subject to the Plan may be issued in any combination
of Incentive Stock Options or non-Incentive Stock Options. Shares
subject to an Option may be either authorized and unissued shares or
shares issued and later acquired by the Company. The shares covered by
any unexercised portion of an Option that has terminated for any reason
(except as set forth in the following paragraph) may again be optioned
under the Plan, and such shares shall not be considered as having been
optioned or issued in computing the number of shares of Stock remaining
available for option hereunder. 2. Approval. Except as hereinabove amended and modified, the Plan is
approved, ratified, and affirmed without further modification or amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed
as of August 9, 2004, in accordance with the authority provided by the Board of
Directors. ebank Financial Services, Inc.By:

    /s/ Wayne W. ByersTitle:

    CFO
Before the Second Division,

February 21, 1947

No. 51569.

#### Protests 593399-G, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
S02A1199.

#### WELLS v. THE STATE.

(570 SE2d 336)

Thompson, Justice.

On July 18,1994, Wells pled guilty in Bleckley County to murder and aggravated assault. Nearly eight years later, Wells moved to withdraw his plea, asserting he had received ineffective counsel because he was erroneously informed he would be paroled in seven years. The court denied Wells’ motion to withdraw his plea and Wells appeals, urging us to reverse on the ground that he was not afforded an evidentiary hearing or an opportunity to be heard in support of *532his motion.

Decided September 30, 2002.

Lawson Wells, Jr., *pro se.*

*Timothy G. Vaughn, District Attorney, Thurhert E. Baker, Attorney General, Adam M. Hames, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

This case is controlled by *Davis v. State,*274 Ga. 865 (561 SE2d 119) (2002), in which we held that a trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain an untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Wells’ motion, which was filed long after the term of court in which his plea was entered, was untimely and, therefore, did not invoke the jurisdiction of the lower court. Id. Accordingly, we find no error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# L_2022073EN.01000101.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 73/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/379

of 28 February 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Zagorski bagremov med’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Zagorski bagremov med’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Zagorski bagremov med’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Zagorski bagremov med’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Zagorski bagremov med’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Zagorski bagremov med’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.4 – Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 February 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 463, 16.11.2021, p. 24.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
No. 52872.

#### Osaki Shoten, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 538200-G, etc. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the durikono is the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of Abstract 52550 and the bean flour is similar to the merchandise passed upon in Abstract 41668, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of On The Go Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report for the year ended July 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-KSB") of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



/s/  Stuart Turk
--------------------------------------
By:  Stuart Turk
Chief Executive Officer


 /s/ Evan Schwartzberg
--------------------------------------
By: Evan Schwartzberg
Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer

October 30, 2006


<PAGE>