alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41467

Summary Calendar

 

THOMAS L. ATCHISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JERRY BODIN, JR., Correctional

Officer, Texas Department of Criminal

Justice - Institutional Division;

REGINAL BROWN, counsel substitute,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice -

Institutional Division; MICHAEL

DABNEY, Disciplinary Hearing Officer,

Stiles Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

UDC No. 1:97-CV-221

- - - - - - - - - -

July 29, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Texas state prisoner Thomas L. Atchison, no. 605353, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

with prejudice as frivolous for not having any arguable legal or

factual basis and for failing to state a claim upon which relief
No. 97-41467

-2-

may be granted. Atchison claims that a false disciplinary report

was filed against him and that he did not receive adequate due

process at his disciplinary hearing. Because Atchison’s

punishment included a loss of good-time credits and the loss of

earning future good-time credits, these claims would necessarily

affect his sentence if resolved in his favor. Accordingly,

Atchison must first obtain habeas relief for these claims before

he can maintain a § 1983 suit on the same grounds. See Edwards

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, ___, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1589 (1997); Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Carson v. Johnson, 112

F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse

its discretion by dismissing Atchison’s § 1983 action as

frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.

1997).

AFFIRMED.
#### William B. Cochran, *Surviving Partner, etc., Respondent v.*Horace Utter, *Appellant.*

New trial denied; judgment ordered by plaintiff on verdict. Westbrook, J., not acting.
(Reap. Dec. 8572)

#### F. B. Wilcon *v.*United States

Entry No. 8337.

(Decided April 27, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliyeh, Chief Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the value of the merchandise covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement noted above at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States plus 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 $1.10 per square yard less 2)4 per centum discount less non-dutiable charges, packed, and that there was no higher foreign value on the date of exportation for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this Appeal to Reappraisement may be submitted for decision upon the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $1.10 per square yard, less 2% per centum discount, less nondutiable charges, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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.
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(1) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following request for an export license. Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 
                    *http://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html*
                     at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice 
                    ( print page 12638)
                    in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. In its review of the application for a license to export major components of a nuclear utilization facility as defined in 10 CFR Part 110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the facility to be exported. The information concerning the application follows. NRC Application for License to Export
Major components of a nuclear utilization facility
Description of facility
End  use
Country of destinationName of Applicant: Westinghouse Electric Company.
Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs) and RCP Motors and other nuclear power plant equipment for use in the construction of two (2), 1400 MWe pressurized water reactors (PWRs)
For electricity generation at the Shin-Kori Units 3 and 4 nuclear power reactors
Republic of South Korea.Date of Application: February 21, 2007.Date Received: February 26, 2007.Application Number: XR171.Docket Number: 11005673.
 Dated this 5th day of March 2007 at Rockville, Maryland. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret M. Doane, Deputy Director,  Office of International Programs.


[FR Doc. E7-4866 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### EDWARD FRANZEN, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF ELK, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Joseph Pierce Lodge*and *Mr. Frank M. Lario, Jr.*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Falciani, Cotton & Chell*and *Messrs. Ware, Caulfield, Zamal ■& Cunard*for the respondents.

December 12, 1967.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, (the Report) of Innovaro, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Asa Lanum, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to
the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Asa LanumName: Asa LanumDate: March 30, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

DANIEL J. THOMAS

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Daniel J. Thomas, of Concentra Operating
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

I further certify that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

March
29, 2007



/S/ DANIEL J. THOMASDaniel J. ThomasChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                        SENIOR MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN

         The incentive compensation program outlined in this summary is designed
to reward exceptional performance. The components of the program involve salary,
cash bonus and option grants. The participants are the Chief Executive Officer
and the President.

1.  SALARY

Annual salary for each participant shall be increased to $250,000, effective as
of January 1, 2001.

2.  PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE SCHEME

Annual incentive bonuses and option grants will be determined as set forth
below:

<Table>
<Caption>
                                   Incentive Compensation
                                   ----------------------
    Performance Goal                Bonus         Options
    ----------------                -----         -------
<S>                                <C>            <C>
    Meet Wall Street Guidance      $100,000             0
    Meet USAi Budget               $150,000        25,000
    Exceed USAi Budget by 10%      $200,000        50,000
    Exceed USAi Budget by 20%      $300,000        75,000
    Exceed USAi Budget by 30%      $400,000       100,000
    Exceed USAi Budget by 40%      $500,000       150,000
</Table>

Payment of bonus and grant of options shall be subject to approval by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, upon confirmation of the
satisfaction of the applicable Performance Goal.
D
|  | **CADRE Papers**(old series) |
|--|------------------------------|
|  |
|  |

----

| **Links       to other titles**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | **About       this title** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| **Other ****CADRE Papers**              - author              index- title              index
**Books**              - author              index- title              index

**Fairchild Papers**              - author              index- title              index

**SAASS Theses**              - author index              - title index

**Maxwell Papers** *              - index

**Wright Flyer Papers** *             - index

* Available as downloads in PDF format only.

Distribution Policy
Rolling Thunder 1965: Anatomy of a Failure      Dennis M. Drew      
1986, 66 pages      $7.50order P-1

A study of the interplay of policy and doctrine during the conduct of a major military campaign.      

Next Title | Previous Title |AU Press Home**What       do think?** E-mail your comments about this title to Air       University Press |
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

          - 14 CFR Part 39 
          - [Docket No. FAA-2006-25584; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-62-AD; Amendment 39-14733; AD 2006-17-12] 
          - RIN 2120-AA64 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document makes corrections to Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-17-12. That AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211 series turbofan engines. We published AD 2006-17-12 in the                         **Federal Register**                         on August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49339). An incorrect engine model number exists in the applicability paragraph and in the title of Table 5. Also, an incorrect serial number appears in Table 1. This document corrects these numbers. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.                     

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         Effective January 18, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803; telephone (781) 238-7178; fax (781) 238-7199. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A final rule AD, FR Doc. E6-13910, that applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211 series turbofan engines was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49339). The following corrections are needed:                 

§ 39.13 

On page 49340, in the third column, in applicability paragraph (c), in the fourth line, “RB211-535E4-C” is corrected to read “RB211-535E4-C-37”. Also, on page 49341, in Table 1, in the fourth column, in the last line, “WGQDY90005” is corrected to read “WGQDY0005”. Also, on page 49342, in the first column, in the Table 5 title, “RB211-02” is corrected to read “RB211-22B-02”.

Issued in Burlington, MA, on January 10, 2007. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Manager,  Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

 [FR Doc. E7-497 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Summit
Financial Services Group, Inc. (the "Company"), for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to
my knowledge that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Steven C. Jacobs
----------------------------------------------------
Steven C. Jacobs
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  May 14, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Summit Financial Services, Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Information to supplement: Part II. Section B. Worker Exposure/Environmental Release
6922

#### STATE v. LEE.

JurisdicttoN — New Trial — Supreme Court. — Circuit Court has jurisdiction of motion for new trial on after-discovered evidence in criminal case after remittitur has been filed below in appeal without permission of Supreme Court to make the motion on circuit.

*State*v. *Turner,*39 S. C., 436, *overruled.*

Motion in this Court by Gus Lee to suspend appeal from order of Judge Gage refusing motion at chambers for new trial on after-discovered evidence, and for leave to make motion below for new trial on same ground. The case was tried in this Court at November Term, 1907, and opinion filed February 7, 1908, 79 S. C., 223, 60 S. E., 524. The motion appealed from was made on circuit at chambers after remittitur filed below. The motion was made first in this Court on the 28th day of May, 1908, and on the 2d day of June, 1908, was ordered to be argued before the Court *en banc*on June 4, 1908.

*Mr. W. H. Nezvbold,*for the motion.

*Solicitor J. K. Henry,*contra.

The Court *en banc*was composed of the Chief Justice, the three Associate Justices and the following Circuit Judges: Aldrich, Watts, Gary, Hydrick, Klugh, Memniinger and DeVore.

June 4, 1908.

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to suspend an appeal from an order of Judge Gage at chambers, refusing defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence for the purpose of allowing a motion before the Circuit Court for a new trial on after-discovered evidence. This Court is of the opinion that it is without jurisdiction to entertain this motion, and it is therefore refused.

*368In reaching this conclusion the Court overrules the doctrine announced in the case of *State*v. *Turner,*39 S. C., 436, 17 S. E., 885, and cases following the same, and is now of the opinion that the Circuit Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain such a motion. No doubt the execution of the sentence imposed upon the defendant'will be respited by the proper authority until an opportunity is allowed him to make this motion in the proper court.

CIRCUIT Judges Gary *and*Watts *concur in this order only to the extent of refusing the motion.*
No. 61937.

#### Hammel, Riglander & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 325085-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise are watch parts, consisting of assemblies or subassemblies made of one piece of metal and one watch jewel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Weil Bros. Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7305.

Invoices dated Courtrai, Belgium, May 5, 1939, etc.

Certified May 8, 1939, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 23, 1939, etc.

Entry Nos. CE 848277/1; CE 845299/5.

(Decided June 23, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*(/. *Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> (1) That the merchandise, cotton rugs from Belgium, and the issues involved in Reappraisement Appeals 163442-A 00475 and 163443-A 00476, are the same *196in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues which were passed upon in the case of *United States*v. *Stephen Rug Mills, Inc.,*Reaps. 131005-A, etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, wherein it was held that there was no foreign value for the merchandise; that export value was the proper basis for determining dutiable value; and that the export values for the merchandise were entered values.

> (2) That the record in said case, Reaps. 131005-A, etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, may be and hereby is received in evidence as a part of the record in this case.

> (3) That the prices at the time of exportation of the merchandise in suit to the United States, 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 quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, 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, are the appraised values less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

> (4) That Reappraisement Appeals 163442-A 00475 and 163443-A 00476 are hereby submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Washington L. Baker, *Respondent, v.*Clara V. W. Burris, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.