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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10414

Summary Calendar

 

TONY EDWARD POWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID MADDOX, MICHAEL HOUSE; CO II WILSON;

CO II HORN; BRANDON ATCHLEY

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:97-CV-00280

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tony Edward Powell, former Texas inmate # 526334, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A for failure to state a claim for which

relief could be granted. Powell’s motion to amend his brief is

GRANTED. 

Powell alleged that prison officials used excessive force on

him in an altercation that resulted in his loss of good time
2

credits, among other things. A prisoner attacking a disciplinary

proceeding that resulted in the loss of good-time credits cannot

bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages until his

"conviction" in that proceeding has been expunged, reversed, or

otherwise set aside. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997);

Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc).

Powell is unable to show that his disciplinary conviction has been

set aside. See Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.

2000). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Powell’s

motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer v.

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2018

No. 04-18-00199-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.C.F., ET AL CHILDREN,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-11406

Honorable Richard E. Price, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 20, 2018, we received notification from the trial court reporter advising us that 

she has received approximate payment for preparation of the reporter’s record on July 19, 2018. 

Accordingly, the reporter’s record is due on or before August 18, 2018. Appellant’s brief is due 

thirty days after the reporter’s record is filed.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
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 Palmerston Stock Agency, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”), I, Ian Raleigh, President, Principle Executive Officer and Principle Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 (1) The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: July 29, 2011
/s/ Ian RaleighIan RaleighPresident, Chief Financial Officer,

Principal Financial Officer,

Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Accounting Officer, Director
No. 51771.

#### Protests 826807-G/10752, etc., of Alliance Distributors, Inc., et al. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 42988.

#### Protest 993830-G of Hitt Flashcracka Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of Abstract 42145. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1413 was therefore sustained.
Order entered April 30 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 15
- 00043
- CV
IN THE MATTER OF L. A. T. On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 82467
- 03 

### O RDER
W e DENY the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We GRANT the State’s motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than May 24, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
No. 41873.

#### Protest 977788-G of S. I. Moss Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It appeared that there was an attempt made to amend the entry correcting the clerical error but that both the invoice and the merchandise had come under the observation of the appraiser prior to the time of filing the amendment. The protest was therefore overruled.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### DocumentNumber: 

# ^J?43)ll-E-20 3 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:11 AM

Sheet 243 of 264P. 2

•13-99 : a : 2 4PM;F.E . Myer s ; 4 l az o wa n W £./ '£. 01/13/9 9 16:1 7 ©1919941023 4 PE S RT P N C 12)002/00 2

From : Date : Contact : Company : Contac t Repor t Melani e Proctor , Pacific Environmenta l Services , Inc . (PES ) Januar y 13,199 9 Mr . Kevi n Long | \ F . E . Myer s Compan

y Telephon e Number : (419 ) 289-1144 Fa x Number : (419 ) 28 1 -791 5 -pAAIROOCKi- T Contac t Summary : Mr . Kevin Long wa s contactedo n behalf of the U.S . EP

A t o updat e infonnatio n provide d i n th e 199 3 EP

A Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s Screenin g Surve y submitte db y F . E . Myer s Compan y fo r thei r facilit y locate di n Ashland , Ohio . I n respons e t o m

y question s Mr . Lon g indicate d the following : The compan

y discontinue dth e reinforcedplasti c composite s segment o f thei r busines s approximatel

y fou r t o si x month s ago . -—

» ^Wgtr^oss spotty- OPafcroXZoy^.. INFORMATIO

N I S ACCURAT

E 

# /-/*-? ?P. 3

1 - i a - a a ; 4 : z 4 H M ; i- . t . Myer s ; 4 1 a^ o wa n ff 1 • z 

# HUMA N RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 

# FA X F . E . MYER

S 110 1 MYER

S PKWY . ASHLAND , O

H 4480 5 PH : (419)281-996 2 FAX : (419 ) 281-791 5 

# DATE : /-/J'?? TO : /*v/«n; r P r 

## ,~h FROM : C^m, 

### L* 

# 2 i TIME : AT : 

# pes ?/

i w-«** f #O F PAGES (Includin g Cover ) o * MESSAGE :

I f yo u do no treceiv e al

l pages , pleas e call #above . Than k you , in advanc

e fo r you rtime . wp60\Mike\FaxB'an k 

# "L
Order entered September 27, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00253-CR

No. 05-18-00254-CR

JOHNATHON RAMEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-35063-W, F17-35064-W

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the May 31, 2018 motions of 

Ronald L. Goranson for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the 

Clerk of the Court to remove Ronald L. Goranson as counsel of record for appellant. We 

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to

Johnathon Ramey, TDCJ No. 02182808, Middleton Unit, 13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas, 

79601.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
Filed 4/17/23 P. v. Tina R. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TINA R.,

Defendant and Appellant. D081326

(Super. Ct. No. MCR22

- 030 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Marian F. Gaston

, Judge. Affirmed.

Sally Patone

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In January 2022, Tina R. ( Appellant ) filed a pro. per. request for

hearing for relief from firearms prohibition pursuant to Welfare and

Institutions Code 1 section 8103

, subd ivision (f)(1). In February 2022, the

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.2

Bureau of Firearms filed a re port noting that A ppellant had a section 5150

hold in October 2018 and a 14 day proceeding under section 5250 in

November 2015.

The trial court summarily denied the request without a hearing.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the

record for error consistent with the requirements of Wende . We offered

A ppellant the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not

responded.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks

the court to re view the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and

in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel

has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential

merits of this appeal : Whether the court erred in denying A ppellant’s request

without granting a hearing.

We have reviewed the entire record consistent with Wende and Anders

.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented A ppellan t on this appeal.3 DISPOSITION

The order denying Appellant ’s petition for relief under section 8103,

subd ivision (f)(3) is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

DO, J.
No. 58139.

protest 174907-K (New York).

#### Ira Furman Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the merchandise in controversy is metal scrap, to wit, nonferrous metal scrap containing nickel, copper, and zinc, and articles of which nonferrous metal is the component material in chief value; that the material is secondhand, waste, or refuse; and that it is obsolete, defective, or damaged and is fit only to be remanufactured. Upon the agreed statement of facts, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, William Strauss, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Provide Commerce, Inc.; 

 

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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 17, 2004
#### David G. Yuengling, Jr., *Respondent, v.*William Hone anothers, *Appellants.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Brady, J.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Worldspan, L.P. (the “Company”)Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Rakesh Gangwal, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Kevin W. Mooney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

 

(1).                                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| Date:  | November 7, 2005 |   |                                            | By: | /s/ Rakesh Gangwal  |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------------|--------|
|   |                  |   | Rakesh Gangwal                                  |
|   |                  |   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                  |   |
|   |                  |   |
| Date:  | November 7, 2005 |   |                                            | By: | /s/ Kevin W. Mooney |   |
|   |                  |   | Kevin W. Mooney                                 |
|   |                  |   | Chief Financial Officer                         |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Daniel F. Young, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7332.

Invoices dated Sheffield, England, August 31, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 9, 1945, etc.

Entry No. 715222, etc.

(Decided July 11, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley 8. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule which is marked *“A”*and made a part of this decision, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8605)

#### E. F. Philbin *v.*United States

Entry No. 1127.

(Decided June 22, 1956)

*William H. Criswold*for the plaintiff.

*Oeorge Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, 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 containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows:

> Pineapple in syrup (cubes)_$0.17300 per pound

> Pineapple in syrup (tidbits)_$0.17611 per pound

> Papaya in syrup_ $0.12968 per pound

> *623All the foregoing less charges for truckage to wharf, forwarding fees and consular invoice, and less value of American drums *@*$7.00 each.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing 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 as follows:

> Pineapple in syrup (cubes)_$0,173 per pound

> Pineapple in syrup (tidbits)_ 0.17611 “ *“*

> Papaya in syrup_ 0.12968 “ “

> All less charges for truckage to wharf, forwarding fees, and consular invoice, and less value of American drums at $7 each.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

March 23, 1950

No. 54139.

#### Austin & Company *v.*United States,

protest 130863-K (Tampa).

Lawrence, Judge:

A mast, boom, and sail of a sailboat, which sailboat had been previously imported, are claimed by plaintiff to be a short shipment and consequently should be classified for duty as though they were imported as integral parts of the boat.

The previously imported sailboat had been assessed with duty at 15 per centum ad valorem pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 370 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 370), as modified by the trade agreement entered into between the United States and Canada, effective January 1, 1939 (74 Treas. Dec. 235, T. D. 49752).

It should be noted that whereas paragraph 370 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides for—

> Airplanes, hydroplanes, *motor boats, and parts of the foregoing,*30 per centum ad valorem. The term “motor boats,” when used in this Act, includes a yacht or pleasure boat, regardless of length or tonnage, whether sail, steam, or motor propelled * * *. [Italics supplied.)

said paragraph, as modified by the trade agreement, *supra,*while granting a reduction in duty for motorboats, among other articles, makes no concession with regard to “parts of the foregoing.” Therefore, the provision for “parts” in the original act is operative.

Even though it be true as indicated by the record that the mast, boom, and sail were designed for exclusive use on the boat previously imported, it is perhaps unfortunate for plaintiff that they did not accompany the boat.

In the circumstances, therefore, the case would seem to be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in *United States*v. *Schoverling,*
      *400146 U. S. 76. In that case, certain gunstoclcs were imported which were intended to be joined with gun barrels to be brought into this country at a later time. Nevertheless, the collector of customs classified them for duty as guns. The Supreme Court, however, held that this classification was erroneous and that the gunstocks were dutiable as imported. See also *University of Chicago*v. *United States,*2 Cust. Ct. 358, C. D. 159, and cases therein cited. In the *University of Chicago*case, *supra,*the plaintiff successfully contended that a certain carillon which was shipped on four different vessels was not an entirety and that each shipment should be treated for tariff purposes as parts of a carillon.

It is observed that although plaintiff in the present case requested time to file a brief, none was filed by it herein.

Upon a full consideration of the facts in this case and the authorities referred to above, we hold that the mast, boom, and sail covered by this protest were properly classified by the collector of customs as parts of a sailboat in paragraph 370 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 370) and appropriate duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem.

The claim of the plaintiff is overruled, and the decision of the collector is affirmed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City
Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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: November 15, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Principal Financial Officer




27