alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 26, 2022*

Decided September 7, 2022 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge 

No. 21-3259 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

BRIAN BROADFIELD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Central 

District of Illinois. 

No. 13-CR-10055 

Michael M. Mihm, Judge. 

O R D E R 

Brian Broadfield contends that he has conditions that expose him to extra risk 

should he contract COVID-19, and he maintains that this should lead the district court 

to grant his motion for compassionate release. 

He made such a contention before, and we rejected it on the merits. United States 

v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801 (7th Cir. 2021). Our decision observed that Broadfield, who 

refuses to accept vaccination, appears to be at no greater risk in prison than outside. We 

added that his stated reason, fear of allergic reaction, lacks medical support. 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record 

adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 21-3259 Page 2 

Broadfield contends that our decision was mistaken and that we should direct 

the district court to ignore it. To the contrary, that decision is the law of the case, and no 

intervening developments call it into question. Broadfield still has not proffered 

evidence that allergies prevent him from being vaccinated (he has some allergies, but 

not the kind that the CDC says make vaccination inadvisable), and he has not offered 

any evidence suggesting that vaccinated persons with his medical conditions face 

greater risks from COVID-19 in prison than they would face outside. He therefore has 

not established an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. 

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20401 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

John J. Dierlam, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Joseph R. Biden, in his official capacity as President of the United States; 

United States Department of Health and Human 

Services; Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services; United States Department of Treasury; 

Janet Yellen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury; United 

States Department of Labor; Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:16-CV-307 

______________________________ 

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

February 29, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20401 Document: 34-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024
No. 23-20401 

2 

 

Pro se Plaintiff John Dierlam brought claims challenging the 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) alleging a myriad of violations of the United 

States Constitution and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 

Dierlam sought both retrospective and prospective relief. 

This pro se case was previously before this court in 2020. See Dierlam 

v. Trump, 977 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2020). There, we remanded the case so the 

district court could conduct a full mootness analysis and so Plaintiff could 

seek a refund of the shared-responsibility payments he made under the ACA 

from 2014-2017 (a fee imposed on individuals who failed to purchase health 

insurance) (retrospective relief). Id. at 475, 478. As to prospective relief, this 

court concluded that changes in the law raised questions of standing and 

mootness which the district court was to address on remand. Id. at 473-74. 

On remand, the district court granted Defendants’ Partial Motion to 

Dismiss finding that Plaintiff’s claims were moot and/or lacked standing 

because the Tax Cut and Jobs Act reduced the shared-responsibility 

payments to $0; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

created exemptions to the contraceptive-coverage requirement, which 

included an individual exemption for individuals like Plaintiff; and Plaintiff 

could not state an injury under § 1502(c) of the ACA. After permitting 

Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint, Defendants filed another Partial 

Motion to Dismiss which the district court granted. Plaintiff appealed. 

This court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs and 

pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, the judgment is affirmed 

for the reasons stated in the district court’s detailed clarifying memorandum 

on the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Those reasons 

also apply to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. The district court did 

not err in granting Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. We AFFIRM. 

Case: 23-20401 Document: 34-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/29/2024
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Muir, 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 to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



         Dated: August 9, 2010                        /s/ Gordon J. Muir
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Its: Chief Executive Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
         this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are
         accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of
         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 32-2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund V, L.P., Series 3 (the “Partnership”) for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.








/s/MELANIE R. WENK


Melanie R. Wenk


Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: June 27, 2011
Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the undersigned, Darren Holm, Chief Executive Officer of Silver  Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his  knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007  Of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company.

Date:       September 30, 2004

/s/Darren J. Holm-------------------------Darren J. HolmChief Executive Officer

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the undersigned, Dempsey Mork, Chief Financial Officer of Silver  Bow Antique Aviation, (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to hisknowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007  of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  September 30, 2004

/s/Dempsey K. Mork  -------------------------  Dempsey K. Mork  Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1554

LANCE E. RUCK; ROBERT A. CUSHING, JR.,

Creditors - Appellants,

and

KENNETH R. SMOOT,

Creditor,

versus

LYNN LEWIS TAVENNER, Trustee,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:05-cv-00482-JRS; BK-98-39531-DOT)

Submitted: July 26, 2006 Decided: August 10, 2006

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance E. Ruck, Robert A. Cushing, Jr., Appellants Pro Se.

Christopher Abram Jones, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Lance E. Ruck and Robert A. Cushing, Jr., seek to appeal

the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order

denying their motion for payment of administrative expenses. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

March 30, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on May 4, 2006.

Because Ruck and Cushing failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

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
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2462]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5682-8]


Cancellation of Common Sense Initiative Council, Automobile 
Manufacturing Sector Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open meeting of the Public Advisory 
Common Sense Initiative Council, Automobile Manufacturing Sector 
Subcommittee.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is given that the Automobile Manufacturing Sector 
Subcommittee of the Common Sense Initiative Council meeting scheduled 
for February 6, 1997, in Washington, D.C. has been cancelled.

CANCELLATION OF OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Notice is hereby given that the 
Environmental Protection Agency, has cancelled an open meeting of the 
Automobile Manufacturing Sector Subcommittee which was scheduled for 
Thursday, February 6, 997.
    Project development is not ready for subcommittee dialogue and 
decisions; therefore, the February meeting has been cancelled. A late 
March meeting will be scheduled. Once the plans for this meeting have 
been finalized, a notice will be published.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For more information about the cancellation of 
this meeting, please contact either Alan W. Powell, Designated Federal 
Officer (DFO), at EPA, Region 4, by telephone on (404)-562-9045, by fax 
on (404) 562-9068 or by mail at 100 Alabama Street, S.W., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303; or Keith Mason, Alternate DFO, at EPA on (202) 260-1360.

    Dated: January 27, 1997.
Prudence Goforth,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-2462 Filed 1-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EX-99.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 906

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of chief executive officer

In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  International  Surfacing,  Inc, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Samuel Serritella,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Samuel Serritella
---------------------
Samuel Serritella Chief Executive Officer
September 9, 2003
Record of conversation

Mondoil Enterprises International, LLC operates as a subsidiary of RAK Petroleum Holdings, an Olsolisted oil and gas investment company. It is a CFR part 91 operator managed by Jet Aviation Flight 

Services which is a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation. On September 18, 2015 I, Michael E. 

Filippell, sent an email to Mr. Bill Thomas, Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc. Director of Operations, in 

which I outlined the requirements for petitioning for an exemption to an SFAR, citing 14 CFR 11.63 and 

14 CFR 11.81. I explained the importance of discussing why granting the exemption would not adversely 

affect safety, or how it would provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by SFAR 77 

and the method by which you will obtain current threat information and integrate that information into 

all phases of your proposed operation. While every question is important, these can be pivotal in 

helping us choose an appropriate course of action. Mr. Thomas responded on the same day and stated

he would make some amendments removing the September 21 date, change the security information 

provided, and submit the petition.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the periodic report of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Weibing Lu, Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.





Date:  May
      17, 2010
                /s/ Weibing LuWeibing LuChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### Carl T. JEANSONNE v. PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.

No. 61733.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Carl T. Jeansonne applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 354 So.2d 619.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Narasimhan P.Kannan, certify that:

1.                  I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 ofVCampus Corporation;

2.                  Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                  Omitted;

4.                  The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a.                 designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which the annual report is being prepared;

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

c.                 disclosed in thereport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of this annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                  The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s independent registered public accounting firmand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a.                 all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b.                any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  |   | April 26, 2007 |   |   |   | By:    |   | /S/ NARASIMHAN P. KANNAN |
|--------|--------|----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   |           |   |   |   |   |   | Narasimhan P. Kannan     |
|   |   |           |   |   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick FOGARTY.

No. 61149.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1978.

Elizabeth W. Cole, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Donald T. Giglio, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.-

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Ardell Nelson, Jr.  From the 47th District Court 

 Appellant Of Potter County 

v. No. 07-06-00100-CV  May 25, 2006 

Joe Nunn, et al  Opinion by Justice Campbell 

 Appellee 

JUDGMENT

 Pursuant to the opinion of the Court, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that this 

appeal be dismissed. 

 It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which 

let execution issue. 

 It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance. 

o O o
"Brown, Elizabeth" <eabrown@steptoe.co

m>

07/07/2008 03:00 PM To Jean Holmes/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Goldberg, Seth" <SGoldberg@steptoe.com>

cc Betty Shackleford/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Frank Sanders/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Philip
Ross/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dennis
Edwards/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark

Hartman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subj

ect RE: ammonia petition follow-up

Jean: On behalf of our client, Nalco, Inc., and in response to your request, please see the attached. This response does not include any

information considered to be business confidential.

Regards,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Anne Brown, Ph.D. Technical and Regulatory Analyst Steptoe & Johnson, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036

tel: 202-419-5166

fax: 202-429-3902 eabrown@steptoe.com

This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this email in error, do not copy, distribute, save or otherwise use. Please notify the sender immediately at "eabrown@steptoe.com".

-----Original Message----- From: Holmes.Jean@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Holmes.Jean@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 PM To: Brown, Elizabeth; Goldberg, Seth Cc: Shackleford.Betty@epamail.epa.gov; Sanders.Frank@epamail.epa.gov; Ross.Philip@epamail.epa.gov; Edwards.Dennis@epamail.epa.gov; Hartman.Mark@epamail.epa.gov Subject: ammonia petition follow-up

Hi Seth and Elizabeth,

This note is a follow-up to our conversation last week regarding a clarification to a reference in your December 4, 2007 petition on behalf of Nalco requesting that EPA reconsider its registration of two ammonia products used in connection with chlorine to treat water. Thanks for responding so quickly. Please provide your definition of "activator" along with appropriate citations and also confirm your stated belief that your definition of "activator" encompasses all the inert ingredients and uses listed in Appendix 3 of your petition. Please provide further explanation of how you believe each example included in Appendix 3 specifically compares to the role which you believe ammoniahas when used in connection with chlorine to treat water, and to what you are asking the Agency to do in the petition.

Please provide the requested information to me by email or letter. Should your response include any information that you consider to be confidential business information, please provide an unredacted version

as well as a version from which such information has been redacted so it may be publicly released. Should you find it necessary to redact any information, please provide an explanation for each redaction. Should you have any questions, please send them to me by email or letter.

Thanks for your assistance.