alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10465

Conference Calendar

__________________

SAUREZ ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LINDA D. HALES,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94-CV-350

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Saurez Anderson, a Texas state prisoner, filed a civil

rights complaint against Linda D. Hales pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging that, after his watch had been stolen by another

inmate, recovered, and placed in the property room, Hales refused

to return his watch to him. The district court dismissed his

complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Anderson
No. 95-10465

-2-

argues that the district court abused its discretion by

dismissing his complaint as frivolous.

"The Due Process Clause is not implicated by a state

official's negligent act causing unintended loss of property,"

and even the intentional deprivation of an inmate's property does

not raise a constitutional claim if an adequate post-deprivation

remedy exists. Simmons v. Poppell, 837 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir.

1988) (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986), and

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)). Anderson has a right of

action under Texas law for any alleged negligent or intentional

deprivation of property. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381,

383 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 897 (1983); Myers v.

Adams, 728 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. 1987). 

Further, contrary to his argument on appeal, Anderson has

not demonstrated that he has suffered "a violation of a

substantive right protected by the Constitution against

infringement by state governments." See Augustine v. Doe, 740

F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1984). Anderson's allegation that Hales,

the property officer at the prison, wrongfully confiscated his

personal property, does not state a Fourth Amendment violation. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing

Anderson's complaint as frivolous. Anderson is warned that the

filing of further frivolous suits in this court could result in

the imposition of sanctions. See Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d 417,

418 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Aviation’s new commander tours industrial support activities

By Cathy Hopkins DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                Richmond, Va  –              
Straight from completing the Capstone Military Leadership Program at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, District of Columbia, Air Force Brig. Gen. Linda Hurry, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation commander, began a round of tours to four of the activity’s industrial support activity sites Aug. 21-25. 

Hurry started her visits at DLA Aviation-San Diego in North Island, California, on Aug. 21, meeting DLA Aviation employees and sharing her leadership philosophy.  She also met Navy customers while touring the Fleet Readiness Center-Southwest.

During the week-long tour, Hurry will also visit DLA Aviation at Ogden, Hill Air Force Base, Utah; DLA Aviation at Warner Robins, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia; and DLA Aviation-Jacksonville, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Aviationtown hallwarfighter support
No. 42064.

#### Protests 972220-G, etc., of Butler Bros. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the harmonicas in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 40586. .The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was therefore sustained.
Opinion issued January 27, 2015 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00793 - CV

——————————— DANITA MANNING , Appellant

V. LLOYD ERNEST MITCHELL, SR. , Appellee
On Appeal from the 311th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012 - 46494

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Danita Manning , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 5, 20.1; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 2013),2

101.0411 (West Supp. 2014); Order Regarding Fees Charged i n the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- district Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Tex. Aug. 16, 2013). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the
c lerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss an y pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd
.
No. 44327.

Suit 4266.

#### *United States*v. *Elliot, Greene & Co. et al.*

Reap. Dec. 4571 affirmed. C. A. D. 141.
#### James Davis *vs.*J. W. Brady & Co.

*Error to Muscatine.*

Where a plea is filed before default is actually taken, it is in time although filed after the time when the plaintiff might have taken a judgment by default.

The rules of court permitted the plaintiff to take judgment by default, if no plea was filed by the morning of the second day of the term. In this case the plea was not filed till the evening of the second day, but no default had been previously taken. The plaintiff, however, regarding the plea as a nullity, afterwards took a judgment by default, which constitutes the error now complained of.

Whicher, for plaintiff in error.

Lowe, for defendant.

By the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The record in this case, exhibits a meterial error. Before any default was entered up, a plea appears to have been filed, notwithstanding which, judgment was rendered by default. The counsel for the defendants in error, contend that inasmuch as the plea was not filed until the *evening*of the second day of the term, and as the rule *of*court requires in effect that it should have been filed by the morning of that day, the defendant below was actually in default, and that the plea was too late.

Admitting that the rules adopted in 1839, are still in full force in Muscatine county, and that we can judicially take cognizance of that fact, still those rules only, declare that where the defendant does not plead by the second day, the plaintiff may take a judgment by default at the next regular call of the roll of attorneys. If he does not avail himself of this privilege, the defendant may still plead. A plea is in time previous to the actual entering up of a default, unless there is some express rule of court to the contrary. The transcript does not show such a rule here.

The judgment of the court below, will therefore be set aside, and the - case remanded to the District Court of Muscatine county.
MICHAEL ANTHONY PLANES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 2306

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed November 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

P amela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 56709.

protests 178155-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### Chelsea Lamp & Shade Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
S. 1541 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

An Act 

To revise the Federal charter for the Blue Star Mothers of America, Inc. to reflect 

a change in eligibility requirements for membership. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP TERMS. 

Section 30504 of title 36, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking the text preceding subparagraph (A) 

and inserting ‘‘she is a mother (meaning a woman who 

filled the role of birthmother, adoptive mother, step-mother, 

foster-mother, grandmother, or legal guardian) of a person 

who—’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘in World War 

II or the Korean hostilities’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or is a citizen of the 

United States living outside the United States’’ before the 

period at the end. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 46451.

#### Protests 56294-K, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 45502 the protests were sustained.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the annual Report of Victor Industries. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lana Pope, herby 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 By/s/ Lana PopeLana Pope, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and TreasurerDate June 16, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1552 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1552

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide an exception to 
that Act for actions carried out against grizzly bears in self-defense, 
     defense of others, or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2011

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide an exception to 
that Act for actions carried out against grizzly bears in self-defense, 
     defense of others, or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 FOR SELF-
              DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF OTHERS, OR REASONABLE BELIEF OF 
              IMMINENT DANGER REGARDING GRIZZLY BEARS.

    Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k) Self-Defense, Defense of Others, or Reasonable Belief of 
Imminent Danger Regarding Grizzly Bears.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law (including regulations), the provisions of this Act 
shall not apply with respect to the taking of any grizzly bear by an 
individual who demonstrates to the Secretary by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the individual carried out the taking as a result of--
            ``(1) self-defense;
            ``(2) defense of another individual; or
            ``(3) a reasonable belief of imminent danger posed by the 
        grizzly bear to any individual.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Torrance WHITE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 10-99-068-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

May 5, 1999.

*382Robert T. Swanton, Jr., Waco, for appellant.

John W. Segrest, Criminal Dist. Atty., Waco, for appellee.

Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Torrance White was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to ten years in prison, probated. The trial court revoked appellant’s probation and assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment plus a $500.00 fine. From this probation revocation, White filed a notice of appeal. He now seeks to dismiss his appeal.

In relevant portion, Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states:

> (a) At any time before the appellate court’s decision, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal if the appellant withdraws his or her notice of appeal. The appellant and his or her attorney must sign the written withdrawal and file it in duplicate with the appellate clerk, who must immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial court clerk.

Tex.R.App. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in this appeal. The motion is signed by White’s attorney.

Although WTite did not sign the motion itself, he did sign an affidavit in which he swore to having read the motion and acknowledged that the facts contained in the motion are true and correct. We find that the motion and affidavit substantially comply with the Rule requiring that both the appellant and the attorney sign the motion to dismiss an appeal. Tex.R.App. P. 42.2. Thus, the motion meets the requirements of the Rule and is granted.

White’s appeal is dismissed.
----

**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 I, Thomas C. Shrake, certify that: 

 1.            I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Pacific Rim Mining Corp.  (the “Company”); 

 2.          Based  on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual Report; 

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

 4.          The  Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing  and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act  Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the  period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 b)          Evaluated  the effectiveness of the Company’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  annual 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  Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our  most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the  Company’s auditors and the audit committee of Company’s board of  directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial  reporting.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05065**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05065\05065_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05065\05065_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05065\05065_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05065\05065_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05065\05065_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05065\05065_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05065\Certification Statement Plant ID 05065.pdf Plant certification statement x 05065\Correspondence\05065 Response_032411\05065_Email Correspondence_032411.pdf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 05065\Correspondence\05065 Response_032411\Copy of ALF_Part_A.xls Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey. x 05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_ALF ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram August 2010.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_ALF Part D Block Diagrams.xlsx Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_Allen Fossil Plant_EA for Units 1,2,3, Selective Cayaltic Re.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_Allen Fossil Plant_Environmental Statement_Gas Turbine P (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_Allen Fossil Plant_Environmental Statement_Gas Turbine Peaki.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_Allen Fossil Plant_Revised EA for Units 1,2,3, Selective Cay.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_Allen Fossil Plant_SCR Catalyst Replacement Unit 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05065\Supplemental Documents\05065_FEA_Allen Fossil Plant Biogas Fuel Supplement Project.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05065\Supplemental Documents\ALF.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05065\05065_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05065\05065_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
No. 65759.

#### Nylonge Corporation *v.*United States (American Sponge & Chamois Co., Inc., Party in Interest),

protest 59/15900 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with plaintiff’s motion for dismissal on the ground that “this protest is not from the first liquidation of the merchandise” and following the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury rejecting plaintiff’s complaint (T.D. 54537), the motion to dismiss was granted.
EXHIBIT 99.1

  Certification by the Principal 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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., a limited partnership organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Partnership"), does hereby
certify that, to the best of such officer's knowledge:

     1.   The accompanying Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form
	    10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report")
	    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
	    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Partnership.



                                          /s/ E.J. Holm
                                          ---------------------------
                                          E. J. Holm
                                          President
                                          May 13, 2003
No. 40451.

#### Protests 413055-G, etc., of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel atomizers, boxes, incense burners, and photo frames chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445, *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47857), and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited. Mirrors similar to those the subject of Abstract 8950 were held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 230.