alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

JUNE B. HENSON

v. Record No. 2027-96-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM CULPEPER HEALTH CARE CENTER/ DECEMBER 17, 1996 MEDICAL FACILITIES OF AMERICA AND PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (June B. Henson, pro se , on briefs). (John K. Coleman; Colleen M. Gentile; Slenker, Brandt, Jennings & Johnston, on brief), for appellees.

June B. Henson (claimant) contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that her psychological condition did not qualify as a compensable occupational disease. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), employer raises the additional question of whether the commission erred in finding that claimant's depression/anxiety disorder constituted an occupational "disease" under the Workers' Compensation Act. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. In holding claimant's depression/anxiety disorder did not qualify as a compensable occupational disease, the commission

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 found as follows: The medical evidence and testimony indicate that her condition was precipitated by the hiring of a new administrator at the facility where she was employed. The claimant expressed concerns about salary cuts, an inability to schedule staff members for overtime hours, and a general feeling that the morale of her coworkers and the quality of patient care were steadily declining.

These findings are supported by credible evidence, including claimant's testimony and the medical records. Therefore, they are conclusive on appeal. The commission correctly relied upon our holding in Teasley v. Montgomery Ward & Co. , 14 Va. App. 45, 415 S.E.2d 596 (1992), to find that claimant's psychological condition was not compensable. In Teasley , we recognized that "purely psychological disability resulting from disagreements over managerial decisions and conflicts with supervisory personnel that cause stressful consequences which result in purely psychological disability ordinarily are not compensable."

Id. at 49, 415 S.E.2d at 598. Because our holding on this issue disposes of this appeal, we will not address the question raised by employer in its brief. For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6760

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD MILBOURNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00121-H) Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 5, 2007 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Milbourne, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Edward Milbourne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Milbourne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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.

1404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50821

Summary Calendar

ELIGIO I. AMADOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JUANITA DORMAN, Class Supervisor, ET AL.,

Defendant-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(P-96-CA-90)

August 10, 1998

Before KING, JOHNSON, and DUHE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eligio I. Amador, Texas prisoner #681368, appeals the district

court’s summary judgment dismissal of his civil rights claims.

Amador has failed to include any argument in connection with the

district court’s reasons for the dismissal of his lawsuit in his

pro se pleadings.

Under the mandate announced in Haines v. Kerner,

1 courts must

construe pro se pleadings liberally. However, arguments must be
2

briefed to be preserved for appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Amador has failed to brief

any argument related to the reasons articulated by the district

court for the summary judgment dismissal of his claims, he has

abandoned these claims and waived any such arguments. Id. 

Amador has failed to raise any meritorious argument on appeal.

Because his appeal is without merit, it is dismissed as frivolous.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: NIGEL PARKER, SEPPO YLA

- HERTTUALA, Appellants

______________________

2017

- 2244

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/030,399.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J. M ARK P OHL

, Pharmaceutical Patent Attorneys, LLC, Morristown, NJ, argued for appellants.

M ARY B ETH W ALKER

, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by

N ATHAN K. K ELLEY

, T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, W ILLIAM
L A M ARCA

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, N EWMAN and

L INN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 17, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
Case No. 5,397.

#### GIBSON v. JOHNSON.

[Pet. C. C. 44.] 1

Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

April Term, 1810.

Removal op Causes — Filing Petition after Two Terms.

Motion to docket a cause returned from a state court. The defendant’s appearance had been entered September, 1809, and after two terms the petition to remove was filed and granted, in the state court, as of September, 1S09. The court refused the motion.

[Cited in Galpin v. Critchlow, 112 Mass. 340.]

Motion to docket a cause removed from the state court. The appearance of defendant was entered September, 1S09; and, after passing two terms, the petition to remove was filed in February last, and granted as of September.

BY

THE COURT.

The agreement of the-state court, to consider the petition as filed, of a preceding term, when the appearance was entered nunc pro tunc, cannot'give us-jurisdiction, when we see, that in point of fact, it was not filed until a subsequent term. Motion overruled.
In-Flight Icing Encounter and Uncontrolled Collision with Terrain

COMAIR Flight 3272, Embraer EMB-120RT, N265CA

Monroe, Michigan, January 9, 1997

AAR/98-04

Due to the size of this document, it has been split into the following files:

AAR9804_body.pdf Body of Report; Appendix A & B (1.6M)

AAR9804_C.pdf Appendix C (648K)

AAR9804_D.pdf Appendix D (327K)

AAR9804_E.pdf Appendix E (1.2M)

AAR9804_F.pdf Appendix F (869K)

AAR9804_G.pdf Appendix G (1.5M)

AAR9804_H.pdf Appendix H (1.0M)

AAR9804_I.pdf Appendix I (3.2M)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 85 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 85

   To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that the United 
States district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive 
 jurisdiction over actions arising under the immigration laws, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that the United 
States district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive 
 jurisdiction over actions arising under the immigration laws, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. JURISDICTION OVER CASES ARISING UNDER THE IMMIGRATION LAWS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1370. Jurisdiction over cases arising under the immigration laws
    ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district 
court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction 
over--
            ``(1) any case arising under the immigration laws (as such 
        term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.)); or
            ``(2) any claim brought by any foreign national challenging 
        an order of removal from the United States or any other action 
        authorized under the Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
    (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 84 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``1370. Jurisdiction over cases arising under the immigration laws.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 58133.

Suit 4772.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States.

C. D. 1498 affirmed February 3, 1954. C. A. D. 550.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In
connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
Report), I, Stephan J. DeLuca, 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.

Date: November 14, 2008

By:

/s/ STEPHAN J. DELUCAStephan J. DeLuca,Chief Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, 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/ Jonathan H. CohenName: Jonathan H. Cohen Date: August 8, 2013
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John A. Scarlett, M.D., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tercica, 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 tomake 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(s) 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made 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(s) and I have disclosed,based on 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: November 4, 2005
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 644 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 011 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8689 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8689

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, to require Amtrak to include 
   information on base pay and bonus compensation of certain Amtrak 
                  executives, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Amtrak Executive Bonus Disclosure 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMTRAK REPORTS AND AUDITS.

    Section 24315(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, and make available to the public on 
        the website of Amtrak,'' after ``submit to Congress''; and
            (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) provide the annual base pay and any bonus 
        compensation paid to a member of the executive leadership team 
        (including the chief executive officer, president, and 
        officers) of Amtrak, including the criteria and metrics used to 
        determine any such bonus compensation; and''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8689

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 49, United States Code, to require Amtrak to include 
   information on base pay and bonus compensation of certain Amtrak 
                  executives, and for other purposes.
```
No. 57397.

protests 190885-K and 190886-K (Philadelphia).

#### Geo. L. McNicol Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case the court , was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protests were therefore overruled.
No. 44107.

#### Protest 800636-G/10559 of Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
No. 54155.

#### John Martin *v.*United States,

protest 56789-K (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
G- G. MANN 

A-.vlCIIL 

OFFICE OF THE AITORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

238 
Banorablo 5. S. Murohlrron, me 8 

rw3ommendatlonr 66 to the medloal 

and nrrgliwtl treatment. 32~0 State 

Department shell adopt a rsa8onablr 

fee sohedule ror suoh l xaminatlon&i, 

Suah fees shall be paid out oi the 

funds approprltited to the State Depart5Qnt SOP the pUrpQEW4 Of ~3el8- 

tanoa to mody blind poraonrr under 

the provl8loM of this Aat OP for 

admlni6trativo exp~nmb,~ 

“In oarzying out the provi8lons or thla 

motion o? the law, It will be naoeruery for 

the State Department oi Publio Welfare to obtain the asrvloes of an ophthalmologist for 

oonrultatlre servlae to the Dqmrtmnt. The 

ophthalmolo&l6t 8elaoted la on the ra$ular 

payroll of the State Sohool for the Blind 

during nine menth6 or raoh year-dkptambar 

thPou&h by. The Stats Dapartmmt oi Publie 

Welffire wlahso to obtain the 

6wvlaea OS thlr ophthalmolo $I 

~;fz&ic 

aotual oam by oas8 ba81#, said ophtaallPol.cw 

glat to rubalt a monthly bill for ssrvloaa 

rsndersd on a ease bash durlng~tha nine 

month period in whloh he i8 on the payroll 

of the Btata Bohool for the Ellnd.” 

Seotion 3% of Artlole 1.6 of the Eonstltutl~on of 

‘hxar pl%V@DtfI oofqmneatlbn of 

holding two State poeltionr, an “fo 9 

agent, oifloer or agpolntee 

lant 

The aooounting offloe~r or thlcl State 

6hal.l neither draw nor pay a warrant upon the 

!htasu~y In favor of any person, for aabry 

or oompematlo~ aa agent, offloer or appelnteo, 

who holds at the mum tlm8 any other offloe 

or gosit ion of honor trust or profit, under 

thie State or the United States, sxoept aa 

prescribed in this Coa&Atutlon. . . .” 

The ophthtilmologiat you daooribe will not oome within 

the certain sxaeptlona elaawhsre preaoribsd in the Conrtltution. 

In 

an eye, aar, 

opinion No, 04607 this department ruled that 

nose and throat rpeelallnt caiplopod part time in 
one State lfi8tltutlon and aooeptlng and holding a l liallar 

plaoe in another State imttltution at the same time oould 

IlQt r~osl~e otmpensation tor either po8ltion during the 

tl.=e both positions are held. A oopg of thie opiaion lr 

enolosed* 

We bellare that the ophthalmologist oannot aOC3ept 

a nd l .o r ve and r eo sive p a y Sr em the dtate o ? TW~B la enother oapaolty in behalt of the Daparlment of Pabllo Welfares and the taot that he may be paid on a ease by me0 

baa18 by the Department of Pub110 Walfara will not raw 

our oplnlon, 

APPROVEDAUG 21, 1941