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.

1 FED. R. CIV. P. 50.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10281

Summary Calendar

ALFRED TREJO

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DONALD L. COMPTON; ET AL

Defendants

DONALD L. COMPTON, Vocational Instructor

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

5:04-CV-80

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfred Trejo, a Texas prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment as a

matter of law1 against his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Trejo had brought suit

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-10281

2 Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

3 See Price v. Marathon Cheese Corp., 119 F.3d 330, 333 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We review the

district court's decision to grant judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same legal

standard as the district court.”).

4 Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).

5

Id. at 416.

2

against Compton, a prison vocational instructor, claiming that a table router

accident in carpentry class that left him with severed fingers was caused by

Compton’s deliberate indifference to his safety.

Trejo first argues that the district court erred in denying his request for

appointment of counsel. A trial court is not required to appoint counsel for an

indigent plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the case

presents exceptional circumstances.2 The district court, in a written order,

considered the factors for determining whether to appoint counsel in this case

and its decision was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the district court’s

denial of Trejo’s request for counsel is AFFIRMED.

Regarding Trejo’s appeal from the district court’s judgment as a matter of

law, we cannot conduct the proper de novo review3 without a copy of the

transcript of the trial proceedings. We have held that “[t]he failure of an

appellant to provide a transcriptis a proper ground for dismissal of the appeal.”4

However, in that case the court noted that the appellant, after the district court

denied his motion for a transcript, did not reurge the motion with this court.5

Here, in contrast, Trejo did reurge his request for the transcript at the

Government’s expense with this court. We denied his request, finding the trial

transcript was not necessary for Trejo’s preparation of his brief. It is now plain

that the transcript is necessary.
No. 06-10281

3

Accordingly, we ORDER that the transcript be provided to Trejo at the

Government’s expense and allow both Trejo and Compton time to file briefs

prepared with the benefit of the transcript.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hartmarx Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Glenn R. Morgan, Executive Vice President and Chief 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 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: February 13, 2006



|                    |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ GLENN R. MORGAN
|Name:               |  | Glenn R. Morgan                                     
|Title:              |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### POWE-KIRKWOOD, INC., a Mississippi Corporation, and C. Bishop Barker, an Individual v. DAVID M. COX, INC., a Mississippi Corporation.

No. 49876.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 15, 1978.

J. B. Van Slyke, Jr., Hattiesburg, for appellant.

R. M. Sullivan, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and BOWLING, JJ.

Affirmed.

INZER, and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and LEE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6113
MICHAEL DUCHELLE GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LES OSBORNE, Judge; DANNY FOX, Sheriff, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-04-735-3) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Duchelle Green, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Duchelle Green appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Osborne , No. CA04-735-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2005). 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.

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

# DLA joins Air Force, Army to test skills in expeditionary logistics

By Air Force Staff Sgt. Robert Hicks621st Contingency Response Wing Public Affairs

                Amedee Army Airfield, California  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

JTF-POturbo distributionjointexerciseexpeditionary
Exhibit
      23.0







CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
      333-124840 and No. 333-119499 on Form S-8 of Naugatuck Valley Financial
      Corporation of our report, dated March 9, 2007 appearing in this annual report
      on Form 10-K of Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation for the year ended
      December 31, 2006.






/s/
      Whittlesey & Hadley, P.C.





Hartford,
      Connecticut


March
      21,
      2007
No. PD



### I N 

### T HE



## Court of Criminal Appeals

At Austin



# Booker Newsome

, Appellant

v.



# T HE 

# S TATE OF 

# T EXAS

Appellee

Ca us e numb er

1410219

In the 1 79 th 

### Judici al District Cou rt

O f H arr is Co un ty, Tex as

Cause number No. No. 01

- 14 -00834- CR



### In th e Cou rt o f Appeals for th e First J ud ici al Di st rict



# Appellant ’s Motion for Extension of Time With in

Which to fi le Petition for Discretionary Review

TO THE HONOR AB LE COURT OF C RIM I NAL AP P EALS:

BOOKER NEWSOME, the appellant, under T EX

. R. A PP . P. 10.1 & 10.5(b),

move s for an extension of time within which to f ile his petition for disc retiona ry

revi ew. In support of his mo tion, the appellant su bmits the following:

(A) The appellant ’s petition for discretionary re v iew is due on August 17,

2015

. PD-1079-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/18/2015 5:03:14 PM

Accepted 8/20/2015 11:42:06 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK(B) The appellant s e eks an extension of time to f ile the appellant ’ s petit i on f or

discretiona r y review u n til, October 16 , 2015

.

(C) The appellant reli e s u p on the f ollowing f acts to reasonab l y exp l ain t h e need

f or an extension:

Due to the undersigned ’ s workload, more time is necessary to review

the appellat e opinion and complete a petition

.

(D) N o prev i ous motion r e questing an ex t ension of ti m e t o f ile the ap p ellant’s

petition f or discret i ona r y r e view h a s been r e q u ested or gr a nted.

W H ERE F ORE, the a ppellant p r a y s t h at t h is Court will gra n t t he request e d

extensi o n u ntil October 1 6, 2015

.

Respect f ul l y su b mitte d

,



### / s / Ke ll y S m i th

K E L L Y A N N S M I

TH



### C E R T I FIC A

T E OF 

### C OMPL I ANCE 

### & S E R VI C E

Pursuant to T E X. R. APP. P. 9.5, t his cer tif ies that this d o c u m e n t contains 300

words and on January 25, 2015, a co p y of the f oregoing was electro n ical l y served on the

State of Texas.



### / s / Ke ll y S m i th

K E L L Y A N N S M I

TH

Texas Bar No. 00 7 97 8 67

P.O. Box 10751

Houston, TX 7 7 2 06

281

- 734

- 0 668

Kel l y .A. S mith.0 6 @ gm ail.c o m

Counsel f o r the a ppell a nt

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements included in Echo Bay Mines, Ltd. from 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
10-K.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         103,196
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,449
<PP&E>                                         635,776
<DEPRECIATION>                                 401,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 832,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,393
<BONDS>                                         53,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       709,534
<OTHER-SE>                                   (217,225)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   832,145
<SALES>                                        337,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               337,316
<CGS>                                          221,126
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  339,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               171,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (176,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       618
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (176,702)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (176,702)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.31)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 11

# The Middleton Doll
Company and SubsidiariesComputation Of Net Loss Per Common Share

|                                          | For the Year Ended December 31,
|----------------------------------------- | -------------------------------
|
|Net loss available to common shareholders |                                
|Determination of shares:                  |                                
|Weighted average common shares            |                                
|outstanding (basic)                       |                                
|Assumed conversion of stock options       |                                
|                                          |                                
|Weighted average common shares            |                                
|outstanding (diluted)                     |                                
|                                          |                                
|Basic loss per share                      |                                
|                                          |                                
|Diluted losss per share                   |                                
|                                          |
# C_2023227EN.01001001.xml

| 29.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/10

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 15 May 2023

correcting Decision C(2023) 2678 final on instructing the Central Administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national aviation allocation table of Italy for 2022 and 2023 into the European Union Transaction Log

(2023/C 227/07)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1),

Having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1122 of 12 March 2019 supplementing Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the functioning of the Union Registry (2) and in particular Article 49(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | After its Decision C(2023) 2678 final (3) had been adopted, the Commission identified an error in the Annex to that Decision, in that a wrong amount of free allowances allocated to ETSID 48643 for the year 2023 was mentioned. Correction is needed in order to provide clarity and legal certainty to the Central Administrator of the European Union Transaction Log. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

After its Decision C(2023) 2678 final (3) had been adopted, the Commission identified an error in the Annex to that Decision, in that a wrong amount of free allowances allocated to ETSID 48643 for the year 2023 was mentioned. Correction is needed in order to provide clarity and legal certainty to the Central Administrator of the European Union Transaction Log.

| (2) | Decision C(2023) 2678 final should therefore be corrected accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision C(2023) 2678 final should therefore be corrected accordingly,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

In the table in Annex I to Decision C(2023) 2678 final, in the row for ETSID 48643, fourth column, the figure ‘604 612’ is replaced by the figure ‘590 698’.

Done at Brussels, 15 May 2023.

For the Commission

Frans TIMMERMANS

Executive Vice-President

---

(1)  OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32.

1

(2)  OJ L 177, 2.7.2019, p. 3.

2

(3)  Commission Decision C(2023) 2678 final of 19 April 2023 on instructing the Central Administrator of the European Union Transaction Log to enter changes to the national aviation allocation table of Italy for 2022 and 2023 into the European Union Transaction Log (OJ C 226, 28.6.2023, p. 6).

3

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 01, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 01, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0564. LORENZO FOREHAND v. BEMON MCBRIDE et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

19283
#### Valerie Denise CURRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1933.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1978.

*37Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen L. Bolotin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Valerie Denise Curry, was placed on probation for eighteen months. After the expiration of her probation, an amended affidavit charged her with failing to file a monthly report, moving without securing the permission of her probation officer, and with the commission of a new crime. This new crime was alleged to have occurred after the expiration of her probation. Following the hearing on the petition to revoke probation, the trial court modified the probation as follows:

> “IT, THEREFORE, IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the probation of the aforesaid defendant ought to be modified, and it is hereby modified in accordance with Section 948.03, Florida Statutes, in the following manner: That the aforesaid’s probation be extended so that the normal termination date be four from the original date of probation; that the aforesaid be sentenced to eighteen (18) months in State Prison as a special condition of probation; that the aforesaid pay the medical expenses of the victim, Elijah McCray, 315 S.W. 6th Terrace, Homestead, Florida.”

The person to whom the probationer was required to pay medical expenses was the alleged victim of the criminal offense charged, which occurred after the expiration of her period of probation. It should be noted that nothing in this opinion affects the right of the State to bring her to trial on this charge.

It is apparent that the order modifying probation was illegally entered, based upon evidence of alleged violations after the expiration of the probation. See the rule in *O’Steen v. State,*261 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). See also Section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1977).

In view of the fact that appellant has now served a portion of the sentence that was made a condition of the order modifying probation which must now be reversed, accordingly, we reverse the order without direction for retrial and we hereby direct the discharge of the appellant. In view of the circumstances of this case, the time for petition for rehearing is limited to three days.

Reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-51061

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANGEL PINEDA-BENITEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:00-CR-516-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Angel PinedaBenitez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Pineda-Benitez has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-51061 Document: 00511205910 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

            The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June
30, 2007 of Franklin Wireless Corp. (the "Company") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

Date:  September 19, 2007           /s/ OC Kim
                                    ---------
                                    President and Acting Chief Financial Officer