alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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.

2 Dawson’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge committed an error of law by not classifying him as being of “advanced age”

for the purposes of the pre-2001 disability benefits is wholly
without merit. An individual of “advanced age” is an individual

age fifty-five or older. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(e). Born on United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

January 9, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-31121 Summary Calendar

_____________________

DAVID A. DAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport

USDC No. 5:03-CV-660-SMH

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

David A. Dawson seeks review of th e Social Security

Administration’s denial of disability insurance benefits to which

he claims entitlement. The Administrative Law Judge held that

Dawson was not disabled on or before December 31, 2000, when he was

last eligible for such benefits. Dawson argues that the facts show

he was disabled beginning October 28, 1998. 2 We review a finalSeptember 23, 1946, Dawson became fifty-five years old on September

23, 2001, well after the period at issue here. decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to determine whether the decision

was supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the

proper lega l standards were used in evaluating the evidence.

Greenspan v. Shalala , 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994).

There is little evidence to suggest that Dawson could not

perform “light work” prior to January 2001, when colon cancer was

first suspected. The medical records on which Dawson relies show

only that he sought treatment for a groin abscess in October 1998

and again in June 1999. In early 2001, he denied any prior medical

problems other than the abscess. A medical expert reviewing the

medical records concluded that Dawson’s only functional limitations

occurred after surgery in 2001. We find that the record provides

substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s deci sion that

Dawson was not disabled on or before December 31, 2000, when he was

last eligible for Social Security disability insurance benefits.

AFFIRMED.
State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Executive Order R-11-002

Relating to the Amendments of Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Engines on Commercial Harbor Craft Operated Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of

the California Baseline

WHEREAS, on June 24, 2010, the Air Resource s Board (ARB or Board) conducted a public hearing to consider proposed amendment s to reduce emissions from diesel engines on commercial harbor craft operated wit hin California waters and 24 nautical miles of the California baseline, as set forth in the Initial Statement of Reasons released to the public on May 7, 2010;

WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 10-26 , in which the Board approved amendments to title 13, Ca lifornia Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.,) section 2299.5, and title 17, Cal. C ode Regs., section 93118.5, as set forth in Attachment A thereto, with the modifications set forth in Attachment B thereto;

WHEREAS, Resolution 10-26, directed the Exec utive Officer to take final action to adopt the regulations set forth in Atta chments A and B thereto, and such other conforming modifications as may be appropria te, after making the modified regulatory language available for public comment for a per iod of 15 days, provided that the
Executive Officer shall consider such writt en comments as may be submitted during this period, shall make such modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, and shall present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if the Executive Officer determines that this is warranted;

WHEREAS, on October 1, 2010, the approved regulations, with the changes to the originally proposed text clearly indicated, have been made available for public comment for a period of 15 days in accordance with the provisions of title 1, California Code of Regulations, section 44; and

WHEREAS, no written comments were rece ived during the 15 day comment period.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the recitals and findings contained in Resolution 10-26 are incorporated herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that section 2299. 5, title 13, Cal. Code Regs., and section 93118.5, title 17, Cal. Code Regs., are approv ed and adopted as set forth in Attachment
I to this Order.Executive Order R-11-002 -2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the adopted r egulatory text may be further revised with nonsubstantive changes, which will be added to the rulemaking record and indicated as

such.

Executed this __11 th ____ day of April 2011, at Sacramento, California.

/s/
James N. Goldstene
Executive Officer

Attachment
<pre>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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-KSB of RPM Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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, 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.

Date: April 12, 2006                      By:    /s/ Randy Zych
                                               ---------------------
                                               Randy Zych
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (principal executive officer)


Date: April 12, 2006                      By:    /s/ David Lade
                                                ---------------------
                                                David Lade
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                (principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### Anita Lesman, Respondent, v Jerome Weinrib, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[634 NYS2d 179]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated May 10, 1994, as, in effect, denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when a malfunctioning elevator door suddenly and unexpectedly closed on her foot. The defendant, the owner of the building where the accident occurred, sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint solely on the ground that he had no actual or constructive notice of the defective condition.

The defendant’s contention that the court should have disregarded the plaintiffs opposing affidavit because it allegedly contradicted her prior deposition testimony is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant never made a request that the court disregard the affidavit. In any event, the affidavit did not contradict the plaintiffs deposition testimony and the court did not err in considering it.

*602There was some evidence before the court that the alleged defect was apparent for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to have permitted the defendant to discover and remedy it, thus creating an issue of fact as to whether the defendant had constructive notice of the defective condition *(see, Williams v Southland Corp.,*204 AD2d 717, 718). Consequently, the court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 53635.

protest 147543-K(B) (New York).

#### Schneider Bros. & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7885** 

WILLIAM DALE ALLEN, SR. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. LISA CARRINGTON, in her individual capacity; VERA JENKINS, in her individual capacity; STAN BURTT, in his indivi dual capacity; JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections , Defendants

– Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. ( 4:07

- cv - 0 0797

- DCN )

Submitted : March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. William Dale Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Holmes Hood, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charlest on, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Dale Allen, Sr., appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. The district court refe rred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (200 6 ). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Allen that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a dist rict court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Allen failed to object to the magistrate judge ’ s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate revie w of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Allen has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th e court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 6, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-16359

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 03-01855 CV-HTW-1

KH OUTDOOR, L.L.C.,

GRANITE STATE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 6, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

KH Outdoor, LLC and Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (collectively

“the advertising companies”) sued Fulton County, Georgia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging, among other claims, that Fulton County’s improper processing and denial

of several billboard applications violated the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution. The district court dismissed the advertising companies’ claims for lack

of standing. 

The threshold issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in

concluding that the advertising companieslacked standing to assert their claims. The

district court determined that the companieslacked standing based on Fulton County

v. Galberaith, 647 S.E.2d 24 (Ga. 2007). The court interpreted Galberaith as

invalidating only a few distinct provisions of the Fulton County Sign Ordinance,

rather than the Ordinance as a whole. The court then reasoned that, because other

valid restrictions in the Ordinance preclude the advertising companies from erecting

their proposed signs, the advertising companies cannot demonstrate a redressable

injury. 

The Supreme Court of Georgia has now held that the district court’s

interpretation of Galberaith is incorrect. In Fulton County v. Action Outdoor

Advertising, JV, __S.E.2d__, Nos. S11A0023, S11A0101, 2011 WL 2305974 (Ga.

June 13, 2011), the Supreme Court clarified that the Galberaith decision “struck

down as unconstitutional not only the regulatory provisions applicable to billboards

but the entire Fulton County sign ordinance[.]” Id. at *1. 

2
Because Action Outdoor has now made clear that the district court’s standing

determination was founded on an incorrect interpretation of Galberaith, we vacate

the district court’s judgment and remand this case to the district court for

reconsideration in light of Action Outdoor.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

3
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 6 committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, April 26, 2007. 

      ( print page 14648)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or 206-220-6096. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, April 26, 2007 from 1 p.m. Pacific Time to 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096.                 

*The agenda will include the following:*                     Various IRS issues.                 

Dated: March 20, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

 [FR Doc. E7-5607 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHESTER SANDERS, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

13 USCMA 322, 32 CMR 322

No. 16,163

September 21, 1962

*323
      *Colonel Joseph E. Krysakowski*and *Captain Hugh J. Dolan*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Simpson M. Woolf*and *Captain Richard T. Yery*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused stands convicted of three specifications of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921. Although the thefts occurred at substantially the same time and place, the law officer informed the court-martial that they were separately punishable. This was prejudicial error. United States v Florence, 1 USCMA 620, 5 CMR 48; United States v Swigert, 8 USCMA 468, 24 CMR 278.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for further reference to the board and appropriate reassessment of the sentence.
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 Year-end Report of eAcceleration Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I ,
Clinton L. Ballard, Chief Executive 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:

             (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.


                                                    /s/ Clinton L. Ballard
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Clinton L. Ballard
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                                Dated: April 10, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Frontier Fund.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                           
|Robert J. Enck President
and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                             
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                              
|Brent Bales Chief Financial
Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of The Frontier Fund                 

Date: May 12, 2011
#### General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Plaintiff, v Carol A. Serra et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Plaza Pontiac, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants; Morrissey Pontiac, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 387]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover possession of a motor vehicle, the third-party defendants General Motors Acceptance Corporation and Morrissey Pontiac, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 3,1993, as denied their respective cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the appeal of the third-party defendant Morrissey Pontiac, Inc., is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with this Court’s rules *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the cross motion of the appellant General Motors Acceptance Corporation for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision granting the cross motion to the extent of dismissing the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action in the third-party complaint insofar as they are asserted against the third-party defendant General Motors Acceptance Corporation; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant General Motors Acceptance Corporation is awarded one bill of costs.

In the papers submitted in support of its cross motion, the appellant General Motors Acceptance Corporation (hereinafter GMAC) demonstrated that there are no triable issues of fact with regard to the third through tenth causes of action in the third-party complaint *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). In their opposition papers, the third-party plaintiffs failed to show facts sufficient to require a trial of those causes

*416of action. Accordingly, GMAC’s cross motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent of dismissing the third through tenth causes of action insofar as they are asserted against it. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Order entered November 10, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01211-CV

OPTIMAL BLUE, L.L.C., Appellant

V.

VANTAGE PRODUCTION, L.L.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-02838-2014

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s November 6, 2014 unopposed motion for seven-day extension of 

time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than November 17, 2014.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE