alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

ELKINS : 02-1527

GRANT : 02-1943

MURPHY : 02-3866

RENER : 02-3870

JACKSON : 02-3900

MARUSHI, et al. : 02-3914

MORRIS : 02-3953

FORTNER : 02-3961

MACHALA : 02-3984

RAMIREZ, et al. : 02-4114

THEODORAN : 02-4123

STOPHER : 02-4147

COPENHAVER, et al. : 02-4187

PERERA : 02-4205

BERUMEN, et al. : 02-4238

RISLEY, et al. : 02-4246

MONTGOMERY, et al. : 02-4280

MILLER, et al. : 02-4281

DUBOIS : 02-4317

EDUVALA, et al. : 02-4327

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04246-AB Document 2 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Anita B. Brody, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04246-AB Document 2 Filed 07/17/2002 Page 2 of 2
The State



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 16, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00608

- CR

Kevin Johnson,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Cou rt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR0685

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s motion for extension of tim e to file their brief is GRANTED . We order the

brief due January 4, 2016.

_________________________________ Sandee Bry an Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of December, 2015

.

_________________________________ __ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Martin Mata , and wife Enna Fernandez Mata Individually and Fabrizio Mata , Appellant s
No. 06

- 21

- 00089

- CV v. Argos USA LLC , Appellees Appeal from the 61st District Court of Harris C ounty, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 2018

- 62967

- D ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens , Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter* participating

. *Justice Carter, Retired, Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the trial court ’ s summary judgment a nd dismissal of all the appellants claims

a gainst Argos USA LLC

. We further order that the appellant s , Martin Mata , Enna Fernandez Mata , and Fabrizio Mata , pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 22, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Case 2:04-cv-04063-RK Document 90 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-04063-RK Document 90 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-04063-RK Document 90 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-04063-RK Document 90 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 4
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has d etermined 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50087 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARK RODGERS

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-96-CR-344-1

December 7, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mark Rodgers appeals his conviction of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion

to suppress evidence. He furt her argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his

motion for a mistrial because the prosecutor commented o n his post-arrest silence during closing

argument.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and conclude that the district court

did not err in denying Rodgers’ motion to suppress evidence. S ee United States v. Reyes , 792 F.2d

536, 539 (5 th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the district court did not err in denying Rodgers’ motion for** Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

2

a mistrial because he failed to prove that the prosecutor commented on his post- Miranda ** silence.

See Doyle v. Ohio , 462 U.S. 610 (1976). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
E0 Sr

9% A y~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY z 3 ; z

w Q 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 %G T44 PROStG 

# JAN z 5 2011 OFFICE OF SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGENCYRESPONSE The Honorable Richard E. Neal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Neal : Thankyou for your letter of December 21, 2010, to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P . Jackson, regarding EPA's proposed rule, "Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste." In your letter, you express concerns that the rule may encourage improper disposal of used oil fromdo-it-yourself oil changers due to a disincentive for automotive service facilities to accept such oil . I appreciate your interest in these important issues, and want to assure you that EPAshares your interests in continuing the legitimate recycling of used oil . Used oil is one of many non-hazardous materials discussed in the proposed rule. The preamble to the proposed rule specifically discusses used oil that meets on-specification criteria under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 40CFRPart 279 management standards, as well as the management standards for off-specification used oil that does not meet those standards. Under the proposal, on-specification used oil is considered to be a traditional fuel . Traditional fuels are those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials, and are not considered to be solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid wastewhen burned as a fuel under the proposed rule and would be subject to the section 112 CleanAirAct (CAA) standards. Off-specification used oil, on the other hand, is considered a solid waste under the proposed rule, and combustion units burning off-specification used oil would be subject to the appropriate standards under section 129 ofthe CAAfor solid waste incinerators . This proposed approach would provide an additional measure ofcontrol to address the higher level of contaminants that could be present in off-specification used oil . The proposed rule also indicated that off-specification used oil that is processed into on-specification used oil would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes the blending ofoff-specification used oil with virgin fuel products or on-specification used oil .

Internet Address (URL) 9 http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperThe Agency has received a number ofsimilar comments as it relates to off-specification

used oil, and its impact on automotive service facilities accepting such do-it-yourselfoil . Therefore, we will consider your comments as well as the comments submitted by others in deciding how

best to address off-specification oil inthe final rule. Again, thankyoufor your letter. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or have your staff contact Carolyn Levine, in the Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at (202) 564-1859. Sincerely,

islaus Administrator
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00420-CV

Richard Cheroske; David Penny; Blue Castle Property Management, LLC; 

190 Orange Avenue; and Jean Stanzick, Appellants

v.

El Patio, LLC d/b/a El Patio Motel, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. B-09-0977-C, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

This appeal was stayed for bankruptcy proceedings. Counsel for appellants has

notified this Court that the bankruptcy court granted David Penny’s motion to resume this appeal.

Penny filed an amended unopposed motion for reinstatement of this appeal and for partial voluntary

dismissal of the other appellants, Richard Cheroske; Blue Castle Property Management, LLC;

190 Orange Avenue; and Jean Stanzick, who for various reasons no longer wish to pursue

this appeal.1

We reinstate the appeal, grant the motion, and dismiss the appeal as to appellants

Richard Cheroske; BlueCastle PropertyManagement, LLC; 190OrangeAvenue; and Jean Stanzick.

Although the remaining appellants did not join Penny’s motion, Penny’s counsel represents 1

all appellants in this case and filed their notice of appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). This appeal will continue under the same cause number and is restyled

as David Penny v. El Patio, LLC d/b/a El Patio Motel. Penny’s brief is due on July 25, 2014.

It is ordered on June 25, 2014.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

2
No. 62994.

#### China Importing Co. and National Carloading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/814, etc. (New York).

*361Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 72, C.A.D. 676), the merchandise was held dutiable, as claimed, at the applicable rates in effect on the respective dates of importation under the pertinent trade agreements.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-35,247-02

EX PARTE ROBERT EDWARD ATWOOD, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 92-12-1599-CCCR B IN THE 220TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM COMANCHE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07.

In the instant application, Applicant alleges that he is healed of his addictions and mental

instability and no longer belongs in prison, that his plea was involuntary due to the ineffective

assistance of counsel, and that his application for a writ of habeas corpus does not challenge his

conviction. Additionally, Applicant claims that he is being denied release to parole due to a protest
2

published against him on the internet. 

This Court has reviewed Applicant’s claim that he was denied release to parole and has

determined that it is without merit. Therefore, it is denied. Applicant’s remaining claims are barred

from review; as such, they are dismissed. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07 § 4. 

Filed: July 27, 2022

Do not publish
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSE LUIS AREVALO : MISCELLANEOUS 

:

vs. :

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : NO. 05-110

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant,

United States of America’s, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 83), Plaintiff, Jose Luis

Arevalo’s Response, and the replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is

GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

No. 91) is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Robert F. Kelly 

ROBERT F. KELLY

SENIOR JUDGE
Case 2:04-cv-03998-TJR Document 7 Filed 09/27/04 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-03998-TJR Document 7 Filed 09/27/04 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-03998-TJR Document 7 Filed 09/27/04 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-03998-TJR Document 7 Filed 09/27/04 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-03998-TJR Document 7 Filed 09/27/04 Page 5 of 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001051860
<NAME> SCOVILL HOLDINGS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,851
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,706
<INVENTORY>                                     18,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,590
<PP&E>                                          85,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,014
<BONDS>                                        149,811
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,512
<SALES>                                         22,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,860
<CGS>                                           16,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    54
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,591
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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 of Wherify Wireless, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.




February
                14, 2006
            /s/
                Timothy Neher
              Timothy Neher
              Chief
                Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Ronald Nutt, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this Annual Report amendment on Form 10-K/A of CTI Molecular Imaging, Inc.
(this report); 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; Date: January 28, 2005 /s/ Ronald NuttRonald Nutt, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer 1
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 174-7 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 174-7 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
##### 



WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-QSB
Quarter ended March 31, 2007
 CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
  
    
    This Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial position and results of operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of
and for the periods presented.
 /s/ Cynthia A. MahlCynthia A. MahlSenior Vice President/Chief
Financial OfficerMay 14, 2007 Page 36
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene Debel,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV


                              By:  /s/ MARLENE DEBEL
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 14, 2009
_____________________

* Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LINDA HUDSON, et al

: CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

: NO. 02-4365

WILBERTO GONZALEZ, et al

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 20th day of February, 2003,

it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled

and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure of this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to

agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: 

Carol D. James, 

 Deputy Clerk

mailed from chambers 2/20/03:

Alexander J. Palamarchuk, Esq.

Joseph Goldberg, Esq.

Robert D. Macmahon, Esq.

faxed from chambers 2/20/03:

Alan L. Frank, Esq.

Civ 2 (7/95)

41(b).frm

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 21 Filed 02/20/2003 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 1 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 2 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 3 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 4 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 5 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 6 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 7 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 8 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 9 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 10 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 11 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 12 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 13 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 14 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 15 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 16 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 17 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 18 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 19 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 20 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 21 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 22 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 23 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 24 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 25 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 26 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 27 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 28 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 29 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 30 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 31 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 32 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 33 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 34 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 35 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 36 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 37 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 38 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 39 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 40 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 41 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 42 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 43 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 44 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 45 of 46
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 18-3 Filed 04/08/2005 Page 46 of 46