alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60177 Conference Calendar

J. CARL WILSON, GERALD GRUDZINSKAS, and DEBRA GRUDZINSKAS; Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus J. TAYLOE SIMMONS, JR. ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:98-CV-125-WS

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * J. Carl Wilson, Gerald Grudzinskas, and Debra Grudzinskas, appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil lawsuit. The district court dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction. The appellants have not identified any error on the part of the district court. They have failed to brief whether the district court erred in dismissing their appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellants have presented nothing for this court to review.No. 98-60177 -2- Their appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We warn the appellants that additional frivolous appeals filed by them or on their behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, the appellants are cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. Finally, the appellants’ motion to consolidate the cause of action on appeal with a separate bankruptcy action is
DENIED.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE

SYSTEMS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

UNIVERSAL PALLETS, CASE NO. C2-10-113

INC., ET AL., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK R. ABEL

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed August 1, 2011, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered in favor of the Plaintiff, with interest awarded pursuant to the rate set forth in

Ohio Revised Code §§ 1343.03 and 5703.47. This case is DISMISSED.

Date: August 1, 2011 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03996

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

03996\03996_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03996\03996_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03996\03996_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03996\03996_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03996\03996_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03996\03996_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03996\03996_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03996\03996_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03996\03996_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03996\Supporting Documentation\03996_Deadline Extension Approval.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

03996\Supporting Documentation\03996_East Third St PP ID Bottom Ash PID.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03996\Supporting Documentation\03996_East Third St. aerial map.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03996\Supporting Documentation\03996_S1_Water Discharge Sketch_091509.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03996\Supporting Documentation\East Third St PP ID-03996 Fly Ash PID.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Re:      Global Energy Group, Inc.
         Form 10-KSB/A

Gentlemen:

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report
and to all references to our firm included in or made a part of the Global
Energy Group, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8, Registration No.
333-72526, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2001.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.

Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.
Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
November 26, 2002
No. 47466.

#### Protest 15202-K of Textile Design Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It appeared from the testimony that the merchandise was not imported for use as rags but for a definite purpose, i. e., that of selecting from the bulk of the shipment such items as would be salable as designs or patterns for domestic textile manufacturers. Several samples were received in evidence as collective illustrative exhibit 1. It appeared from the testimony of the various witnesses that thé merchandise consists of pieces of wool that had been used by agents as samples representing the production by certain mills, but which samples were discarded because they were worn out, or because the designs were discontinued. One of the plaintiff’s witnesses testified that the merchandise was similar to that involved in *Hoole*v. *United States*(Abstract 50444, old series), in which case he had testified previously, but the court found that this fact was not established, especially in view of the fact that the sample in the said *Hoole*case was not now in the possession of the court and therefore no comparison could be made.

From the testimony given'by these witnesses for the plaintiff and one for the defendant the court found that the merchandise consisted of t-wo different classes. One of the samples covered by exhibit-1, showing the merchandise placed on a card for use by salesmen, was found by the court to be manufactures in chief value of wool and dutiable at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1120, as classified. The remaining six samples of exhibit 1, consisting of unused parts of the pieces displayed on the cards as well as the balance of the shipment composed of pieces of irregular shapes, frayed and torn, were found to be merchandise that was of no value other than rags and were therefore dutiable as wool rags at 18 cents per pound under paragraph 1105 (a). However, as no segregation has been made of the merchandise the court was unable to determine the proportion of wool samples or of wool rags covered by the importation in question and was therefore constrained to overrule the protest without affirming the action of the collector.
(Reap. Dec. 9213)

#### Ray Hill Lumber Company W. J. Byrnes *&*Co. of La. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1997.

(Decided August 22, 1958)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain items of plywood exported from France and entered at the port of Los Angeles, Calif.

Stipulated facts, upon which the base has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of this plywood is foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value for each of the items is the “unit value set forth in column 11 of the invoice, less 16.35 percent tax, packed,” and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF****THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Charles M. Baughn, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition,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 Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols 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, 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 the effectiveness 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 most recent 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 Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation 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 other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ Charles M. Baughn       Charles M. Baughn     Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 12, 2005
37
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

Inconnection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the“Report”), I, William Steckel, Chief Financial 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 operationsof the Company. 

Date: August 7, 2008
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.62



PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL



8 June 2000


Don Amaral

Dear Don,

Vito Ponzio just informed me that you called to discuss you consulting for the
next year. I want you to know that I told him that you agreed to consult with
and for me and Coram and to pay you $8333.33 per month ($100,000 annual rate)
from May 16, 2000 to May 16, 2001 for these services. There will be no other
fees or payments (other than reimbursement for out of pocket Coram business
related expenses, etc). The other terms of you prior agreement have now expired.

If the above is correct and acceptable please initial below and return it to
Vito Ponzio by fax. He'll make certain to pay you and catch up on any missed
payments.


Regards,



Dan Crowley
Chairman, President & CEO



Agreed:           ------------------------/----------------
                            Don Amaral/Date
#### William A. Webster v. W. L. Watford, as Sheriff of Jackson County, *et al.*

176 So. 270.

Opinion Filed September 30, 1937.

*J. McHenry Jones,*for Appellant;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, *W. P. Allen,*Assistant • Attorney General, *Waller & Meginniss, McCord &• Collins*and *Emmet Safay,*for Appellees.

*Nathan J. Roberts,*as *Amicus Curiae.*

Per Curiam.

The decree herein appealed from is hereby reversed and remanded on the authority of Bechtol v. Lee, *et al.,*this day filed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Alcantar Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Alcantar

Apartments

,

Appellant

,

v.

Carlos Gallegos and Luz Maria Rivas,

Individually and as Next Friends of

Jennifer Gallegos and Ashley Gallegos,

Minors

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 165

- C V

Appeal from the

327 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2011

- DCV05300 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ee s ’ third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until February 24 , 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO F ILE THE APPELL EE S ’ B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. John P. Mobbs

, the Appell ee s ’ attorney, prepare the

Appell ee s ’ b rief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 24 , 2015

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26 th day of January , 20 1 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Hughes , JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8634 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8634

  To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report to 
 Congress on crimes committed by individuals granted parole under the 
                    Immigration and Nationality Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2024

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report to 
 Congress on crimes committed by individuals granted parole under the 
                    Immigration and Nationality Act.

    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 ``Criminal Illegal Alien Report Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON CRIMES COMMITTED BY RECIPIENTS OF PAROLE UNDER THE 
              IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

     Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a report on 
number of individuals who are present in the United States pursuant to 
a grant of parole under the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, 
Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans or any other grant of parole under section 
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) 
who have committed crimes in the United States, including the 
nationalities of such individuals, and any ties of such individuals to 
terrorists and transnational criminal groups.
                                 <all>
```
No. 59091.

protest 126871-K (San Francisco).

#### Moses Harvey Botman *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *United States*v. *The Josebra Company*(41 C. C. P. A. 206, C. A. D. 552), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Alfred F. Dunham, *Respondent, v.*Edmond Griswold, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Cullen, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
(Reap. Dec. 9278)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 756924; 950423.

(Decided December 22, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed in these cases as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise involved in the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof consists of plywood exported from Finland in the years 1955 and 1956 and that the merchandise is properly dutiable on the basis of the foreign market value as defined in Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price 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 markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expense incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised unit values less 4% packed.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis of valuation for the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached to this decision, and that such value in each case was the appraised value, less 4 per centum, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A0 55 1 . LONG v . TRUEX.

Ch eri e Lo n g fi l ed ap pl icat i o n s fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap peal o f th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er

d e n y i ng her m o t io n t o m o di fy cu s to d y an d o rd er fi n d i n g Lo n g in co n t em p t

. T h i s

Co u rt g ran t ed Lo n g ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fro m t h e d en i al o f her m o t i o n t o m od i fy cu s t o d y o n

t h e g ro u n d t h at th e ru l i n g i s d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e. As a res u l t

, t h i s Co u rt al so g ran t ed

h er ap p li cat i on fro m t h e co n tem p t o rd er, a ru l i n g no t d i re c t l y ap p eal ab l e. Lo n g

s u b s eq u en t l y wi t h d rew h er n o t i ce o f a p p e a l as t o t h e o rd er d en y i n g h er m o t i o n to

m o di fy cu s t o d y , l eav i n g pe nd i n g o n ap p eal o nl y Lo n g ’ s ch al l en g e t o t he o rd er fi n d i n g

h er co n t em

p t

. Up o n fu rt h er rev i ew, w e h av e d et erm i n ed t h at t h i s ap p li cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal was im p r o v i d e nt l y g ran t ed

. Acco rd i n g l y , t h e ap p eal i s

DISM ISSED.

Up o n co n s i d erat i o n o f Du an e Tru ex ’ s m ot i o n fo r fri v o l o u s ap p eal p en al ti es

p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 7 (e) (2 ), t h e m o t i o n i s h ereb y DENIED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. May 24, 2021

05/24/2021
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41465 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
HUGO CORTES

- FIGUEROA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 694

- 1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo Cortes

Figueroa has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Unite d States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cortes

- Figueroa h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 3, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41465 Document: 00513532727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2016No. 15

- 41465

2 non frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41465 Document: 00513532727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2016
#### W.H. HORNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COVINGTON COUNTY BANK, Defendant-Appellee. Dick POLING and Bob Poling, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COVINGTON COUNTY BANK OF COLLINS, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 82-4255, 82-4307.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 27, 1984.

*1007Thomas W. Tyner, Hattiesburg, Miss., for W.H. Horney.

Frank D. Montague, Jr., F. Douglas Montague, III, Hattiesburg, Miss., for Coving-ton County Bank.

Before REAVLEY, and JOHNSON Circuit Judges, and WYZANSKI *, District Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

*

 District Judge of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

By motion for rehearing Covington County Bank argues that we have ignored a case that held to the contrary of our decision at 716 F.2d 335, that prior case being *Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Merchants National*Bank, 670 F.2d 548 (5th Cir.1982). In the prior case the Merchants Bank insisted it was only a collecting bank, and it was held to be that because its depositor did not demand or direct Merchants to pay the instrument. The mill manager for Southern Cotton Oil Co. prepared the draft on its customer and the draft was forwarded, without any acceptance by customer, to customer’s bank. In our case the customer of Covington Bank signed the draft and directed it “to” the Covington Bank, giving the number of customer’s account in that Bank. That made Covington Bank a drawee and payor bank. The case turns not so much on whether the draft was addressed both to Cattle Co. and the bank, but upon whether Cattle Co. demanded its Bank pay the item.

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.