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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50812

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELIZABETH MARCHAND,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-346-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Elizabeth Marchand has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Marchand has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Marchand’s response. 

Marchand argues that she did not receive three points for acceptance of

responsibility, but the record reflects that the court ultimately did award those

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 16, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-50812 Document: 00512021394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
No. 11-50812

points. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-50812 Document: 00512021394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4888 

To include Czechia in the list of foreign states whose nationals are eligible 

for admission into the United States as E–1 nonimmigrants if United 

States nationals are treated similarly by the Government of Czechia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. RICKETTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include Czechia in the list of foreign states whose nationals are eligible for admission into the United States 

as E–1 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are 

treated similarly by the Government of Czechia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NONIMMIGRANTS TRADERS. 

4 For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(E)(i) of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101(a)(15)(E)(i)), Czechia shall be considered to be a 

7 foreign state described in such section if the Government 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4888 IS

1 of Czechia provides similar nonimmigrant status to na2 tionals of the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000086

14-JUL-2015

07:52 AM
No. 63131.

#### George C. Spencer *v.*United States,

protest 290051-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                    INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE


The Board of Directors
Witness Systems, Inc.:


Under date of January 24, 2001, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets
of Witness Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
(deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2000, as contained in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2000. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned
consolidated financial statements, we also audited the related consolidated
financial statement schedule as listed in the accompanying index. This
financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement
schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.



                                              /s/ KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
January 24, 2001
**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**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that: the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three monthsended September 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Dated: November 10,  2008 | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson         |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                           | S. Jeffrey Johnson             |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer        |
|                           | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 97-60853

Summary Calendar

________________________

TAWANATHA REID

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant-Appellee

________________________

No. 98-60072

Summary Calendar

________________________

AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee

v.

TAWANATHA REID; BRADLEY REID

Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant

and

BRADIE REID, a minor by and through Bradley Reid, the 

natural father

Defendant - Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:97-CV-98-PG & 2:97-CV-261-P-G)

_________________________________________________________________

September 14, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
 

* 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.

2

PER CURIAM:*

The appellants, Tawanatha Reid, Bradley Reid, and Bradie

Reid, appeal from two adverse judgments, one dismissing a claim

of bad faith and the other granting a motion for final summary

judgment on a declaratory action, both in favor of American

Premier Insurance Company. On appeal the appellants challenge,

as they did before the district court, the legality under

Mississippi law of a clause excluding liability coverage as to

family members in an automobile insurance policy issued to the

Reids by American Premier. They argue that the clause was

abrogated by both the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in

Glaskox v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss. 1992) and by § 63-15-

43(3) of the Mississippi Safety Responsibility Act. In addition,

the appellants move to certify the question of the validity of

the exclusionary clause to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. 

That motion is denied.

We find the appellants’ arguments to be without merit. The

Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld a similar exclusionary clause

in Thompson v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 602 So.2d

855 (Miss. 1992). While the court did subsequently abolish

parental immunity in Glaskox, see Glaskox, 614 So.2d at 912, that

decision did not speak to the validity of an exclusionary rule in

an automobile liability insurance policy and therefore did not

overrule Thompson. The appellants’ second argument is also
3

without merit since the Supreme Court of Mississippi’s decision

in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Mettetal, 534 So.2d 189

(Miss. 1988), plainly indicates that the Reid’s insurance policy

was not governed by § 63-15-43(3) of the Mississippi Safety

Responsibility Act.

After a consideration of the appellants’ arguments, the

entire record, and a de novo review of the legal findings of the

district court, the judgments below are AFFIRMED for these

reasons, which are essentially the same as provided by the

district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated

December 16, 1997.

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5664] 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 section 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board, formerly the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB), to take place on February 5, 2007, at the Department of State, Washington, DC. 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 § 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public in the interest of national defense and foreign policy because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958. 

The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament and international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting includes classified discussions related to the Board's ongoing studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism and Space Policy as well as discussions regarding international nuclear proliferation and related aspects of public diplomacy. 

For more information, contact Matthew Zartman, Deputy Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736-4244. 

Dated: January 5, 2007. 

George W. Look, 

Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E7-422 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
(Reap. Dec. 10772)

#### Berben Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 25049, etc.

(Decided June 10, 1964)

*Barnes, Richardson <& Oolburn*for the plaintiffs.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor.

*589The parties hereto have submitted the appeals for decision on a stipulation of fact which reads as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between tbe attorneys for tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe court:

> That tbe appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise described on the invoices as pistols, with or without other words of description, and parts thereof and fittings therefor, and exported by the firm of Pietro Beretta, Italy.

> That the issues are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *Serien Corporation*v. *United States,*Reap. Dee. 10552, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

> That at the time, of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy or for exportation to the United States, and was likewise not freely offered for sale in the United States.

> That at the time of exportation the cost of production of the merchandise involved herein, as defined in Sec. 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the entered value.

> That the instant appeals are submitted for decision on the incorporated record and this stipulation.

Upon tbe record before tbe court, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor in issue and that said value is represented by the entered value.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-917 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR MATERIAL 

Nonproliferation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the CZECH REPUBLIC 

Signed at Prague September 17, 2007 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CZECH REPUBLIC 

Nuclear Material: Nonproliferation 

 Agreement signed at Prague September 17, 2007; 

 Entered into force September 17, 2007.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Lpath, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,Scott Pancoast, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Gary Atkinson, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to our knowledge:

 

 
|   | (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. |

 

 
| Dated:  May 12, 2006   |                     |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        |                     |
|                        |                     |
|  /s/ Scott R. Pancoast |                     | /s/  Gary J. G. Atkinson |   |
|                        |                     |
| Scott  R. Pancoast,         | Gary  J. G. Atkinson,    |
| Chief  Executive Officer    | Chief  Financial Officer |
|                             |                          |  |  |

 

----
No. 51416.

#### Protests 61243-K, etc., of Johnson Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and chowder cups or puree cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States (15*id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 1012)

#### Quon Quon Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 11858.

(Decided December 5, 1961)

*Stein & Bhostale*for the plaintiff.

*WiWam S. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases consists of rice straw rugs, Item No. 19672, Pattern No. 506, exported from Japan; and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoice unit value of $0.03375 per square foot, f.o.b. Kobe, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there were no higher foreign values for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the rice straw rugs, item No. 19672, pattern No. 506, covered by this appeal, and that such value is the invoice unit value of $0.03375 per square foot, f.o.b. Kobe, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00048-CV

PHILIP HAMILTON APPELLANT

V.

KENNETH SHIELDS APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Philip Hamilton filed his brief with this court on May 20, 2013. 

Among other defects, Hamilton’s brief was deficient under subsections (a), (d), 

(g), (h), (i), and (k) of rule 38.1 and subsections (e), (h), and (i)(3) of rule 9.4. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e), (h), (i)(3), 38.1(a), (d), (g), (h), (i), (k).

On May 20, 2013, this court instructed Hamilton to file an amended brief by 

May 30, 2013, to cure the defects. The court’s letter notified Hamilton that failure 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

to file an amended brief in compliance with the rules identified therein “may result 

in striking the brief you filed, waiver of noncomplying points, or dismissal of the 

appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3. Hamilton has not filed an 

amended brief.2

Although only “substantial compliance” with the briefing rules is required, 

see Tex. R. App. P. 38.9, if we determine that the briefing rules have been 

“flagrantly violated,” we may require the appellant to amend, supplement, or 

redraw his brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file another 

brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, we may strike the brief, 

prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file 

a brief. Id.

Because Hamilton has been given notice of the defects in his brief, and 

because he has failed to cure those defects, we strike his brief and dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 

43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: July 11, 2013

 

2On May 30, 2013, Hamilton filed a motion for extension of time to file his 

brief, which this court denied. Because Hamilton had not filed an amended brief, 

on June 18, 2013, we notified him for a second time that the appeal could be 

dismissed. Hamilton responded to our second notice, but his response does not 

reasonably explain the failure to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).
Before the First Division,

April 27, 1961

No. 65535.

#### Ace Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/6093, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64185, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE L. THOMAS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1764 DFL DAD PS

vs.

SANDRA SHEWRY, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On February 15, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. The findings

and recommendations were re-served on plaintiff at his last known address on February 22, 2006. 

The time period has now expired and no objections to the findings and recommendations have

been filed.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

Case 2:04-cv-01764-DFL-DAD Document 30 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 15, 2006, are adopted in

full; and

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted and this

action is dismissed without further leave to amend.

DATED: 3/17/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01764-DFL-DAD Document 30 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2