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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10914

Summary Calendar

LAKEITH AMIR-SHARIF

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL SRT UNIT; DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF; TEXAS

DALLAS COUNTY; SRT OFFICER NFN MARTIN, Team Leader Dallas County

Jail; SRT JOHN DOE, No 1; SRT JOHN DOE, No 2; SRT JOHN DOE, No 3;

SRT OFFICER NFN WEATHERTON; SRT OFFICER NFN CASTILLO;

LIEUTENANT MARK WOOTEN, North Tower Shift Commander Dallas County

Jail; SERGEANT JOHN DOE, 1st watch North Tower Shift Supervisor Dallas

County Jail; CAPTAIN JAMES HOWELL, North Tower Facility Commander

Dallas County Jail; CHIEF DEPUTY DOWNS, Jail Administrator; DALLAS

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; SRT NFN LOCKWOOD, Dallas County Jail;

TEXAS COMMISSION ON JAIL STANDARDS, TCJS 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-310

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10914

2

Lakeith Amir-Sharif moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit

as duplicative. One who wishes to proceed IFP on appeal must show that he is

impecunious and that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue. Carson v.

Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

Amir-Sharif argues that the district court erred by dismissing his suit as

duplicative without first specifying exactly which claims were duplicative of the

claims filed in an earlier suit. He also maintains that his claims, which pertain

to cell and body cavity searches, have merit. Amir-Sharif has not shown that the

district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit as duplicative. See

Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). He likewise has not

shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous claim in his appeal. See Carson, 689

F.2d at 586. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and

his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 4th QUARTER 2023*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

NEW

MONEY

Net BILLS Issuance for the quarter 437.45

SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT** MONEY

COUPONS

CHANGE^

20-Year Bond (r) 10/2 13.00 1.00

2-Year Note 10/2 48.00 3.00

5-Year Note 10/2 49.00 3.00

7-Year Note 10/2 37.00 1.00 112.44 34.56

3-Year Note 10/16 46.00 2.00

10-Year Note (r) 10/16 35.00 3.00

30-Year Bond (r) 10/16 20.00 2.00 39.56 61.44

20-Year Bond (r) 10/31 13.00 1.00

5-Year TIPS 10/31 22.00 1.00

2-Year Note 10/31 51.00 3.00

2-Year FRN 10/31 26.00 2.00

5-Year Note 10/31 52.00 3.00

7-Year Note 10/31 38.00 1.00 178.34 23.66

3-Year Note 11/15 48.00 2.00

10-Year Note 11/15 41.00 3.00

30-Year Bond 11/15 25.00 2.00 102.17 11.83

2-Year FRN (r) 11/24 24.00 0.00 0.00 24.00

20-Year Bond 11/30 16.00 0.00

10-Year TIPS (r) 11/30 15.00 0.00

2-Year Note 11/30 54.00 3.00

5-Year Note 11/30 55.00 3.00

7-Year Note 11/30 39.00 1.00 105.71 73.29

3-Year Note 12/15 50.00 2.00

10-Year Note (r) 12/15 38.00 3.00

30-Year Bond (r) 12/15 22.00 2.00 44.22 65.78

5-Year TIPS (r) 12/29 20.00 1.00

2-Year FRN (r) 12/29 24.00 0.00 0.00 44.00

921.00 582.45 338.55

Estimates are italicized. r = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 776

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.

** Maturing amount is based on private holdings as of 07/31/2023 and subject to change based on Fed purchases.

^ Change is with respect to previous auction. For securities with reopenings, change from new cusip to new cusip, 1st reopening

 to 1st reopening, and etc.
Proposed International Finance Corporation (IFC) Investment in Stora China III

February 20, 2014

United States Position

The United States appreciates that this is an investment in a frontier region with substantial

development impact: significant job creation; support for broader economic development 

through links to farmers and small businesses; and promotion of sustainable forest management. 

The United States takes note of the Forest Stewardship Council and China Forest Certification 

Council certifications and the potential demonstration effect for China’s forestry sector. 

This is a complex project that has taken many years to come to fruition, and the United States 

appreciates the role that the IFC has played in working with the sponsor to address difficult and 

important environmental and social management issues. The United States notes the information 

provided in the Update on Forestry Social Land Use Rights Acquisition, and expects the sponsor 

and the IFC to implement the recommendations outlined therein. Approached properly, with 

serious effort both before project approval and during implementation, strengthening 

environmental and social management is precisely where the IFC can add value and have a 

strong development impact.

The integrated paper mill to be financed by this project will employ best available technology 

and includes some laudable energy efficiency measures, such as cogeneration for power and heat 

in both phases of the project and the use of renewable “black liquor” as part of the energy mix in 

phase two. The United States recognizes that the project will have a lower carbon intensity than 

the Chinese grid. 

However, the project relies on coal for at least 80 percent of its needs in the expected three years 

of phase one of the project, and 20 percent thereafter. The United States, as a matter of policy, 

has greater expectations for the rare circumstance of multilateral development bank projects 

involving coal, related to off-sets and carbon capture and sequestration. Even considering the 

attractive features of this project, the carbon intensity, particularly in the initial phase, leads us to 

vote against the project.

The United States further notes that environmental documentation for Category A projects such 

as this one should be made publicly available on IFC’s web site at least 120 days ahead of Board 

decisions, rather than the standard 60 days applied by IFC. In addition, the United States does 

not support MDB lending to China unless it is aimed primarily at meeting basic human needs.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2011-0916; Dir ID 2011-NM-127-AD

Record of Contacts
#### Max SHINKEWITZ, Appellant, v. Anna SHINKEWITZ, Appellee.

No. 73-1503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - DILUTED
(in thousands of dollars except share and per share amounts)
Twelve Weeks Ended May 2, 1998 and April 26, 1997
<CAPTION>
                                          Twelve Weeks Ended  
                                         --------------------- 
                                           May 2,     April 26,
                                            1998        1997  
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Diluted:
  Net loss applicable to common shares   $   (506)    $ (2,411)
                                         =========    =========
Shares: 
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,536       17,283  
  Shares issuable under employee
    stock plans - weighted average             --#          --* 
  Dilutive effect of exercise of
    certain stock options                      --#          --* 
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,622)      (5,557) 
                                         ---------    --------- 
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             9,914       11,726  
                                         =========    ========= 
Net loss per common and common
    equivalent shares                    $  (0.05)    $  (0.21) 
                                         =========    ========= 

<FN>
# The dilutive effect of 36,498 stock options as well as 280,053
  shares issuable under employee stock plans was not considered
  as the effect is antidilutive.

* The dilutive effect of 31,099 stock options as well as 78,390
  shares issuable under employee stock plans was not considered
  as the effect is antidilutive.
</FN>
</TABLE>


                              23
<PAGE> 32

                                                                 Exhibit 12


             AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
            Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                               (Unaudited)



                                                         Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,
                                                        2003          2002
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $277,032      $241,546
  Interest expense                                     279,841       275,820
  Implicit interest in rents                             9,034         8,449

Total earnings                                        $565,907      $525,815


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $279,841      $275,820
  Implicit interest in rents                             9,034         8,449

Total fixed charges                                   $288,875      $284,269


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.96          1.85
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2449 

To amend the CARES Act to extend the waiver of matching funds 

requirement under the women’s business center program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2021 

Ms. NEWMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the CARES Act to extend the waiver of matching 

funds requirement under the women’s business center 

program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF WAIVER OF MATCHING FUNDS 

4 REQUIREMENT UNDER THE WOMEN’S BUSI5 NESS CENTER PROGRAM. 

6 Section 1105 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9004) 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2021’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘September 30, 2021’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,549
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,902
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,077,727
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,111,675
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,159,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,902
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,362
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (60,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          563000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7708000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    181000
<INVENTORY>                                    3502000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15798000
<PP&E>                                        22590000
<DEPRECIATION>                                16092000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                26908000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13192000
<BONDS>                                        8427000
<COMMON>                                        246000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     5863000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  26908000
<SALES>                                       12605000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12605000
<CGS>                                         10777000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 12149000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              226000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 236000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (107000) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             129000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0      
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    129000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
#### George B. NELSON v. Donald K. CARROLL, Acting Chief Judge District Court of Appeal, First District.

No. 38416.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
#### ARTHUR GRANDLICH ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPLES, a municipal corporation located in the State of Florida, and Anders B. Sandquist, as Director of the City of Naples Building and Zoning Department, Appellees.

No. 73-364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 23, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 18

                                                             Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
              AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                                    Nine Months Ended   
                                                      September 30,    
                                                   1997          1996  
                                                 (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Earnings:

  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                        $147,683      $159,769
  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                         366,037       368,518
  Implicit interest in rents                        8,012         9,141

Total earnings                                   $521,732      $537,428

Fixed charges:

  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                        $366,037      $368,518
  Implicit interest in rents                        8,012         9,141

Total fixed charges                              $374,049      $377,659


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   1.39          1.42
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
#### Ralph SEXTON and Insurance Company of North America, a foreign corporation, Appellants, v. Titus WALKER, Appellee.

No. 72-203.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Alexon LANCLOS et al. v. Robert S. TOMLINSON, Jr., et al.

No. 60576.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1977.

In re: Alexon Landos and Pearl Colligan Landos, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 351 So.2d 1218.

Denied.

DENNIS and DIXON, JJ. would grant the writ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the“Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 26, 2004 to which this certification isattached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | *August 9, 2004* |                                             | By:                 | *   s/James F. Conway III* |   |
|--------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Date             |                                             | James F. Conway III |
|   |             | Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Thiscertification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shall it bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under the SecuritiesAct of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
#### James SALEM, a/k/a James Anthony Abboud, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 1, 1972.

Thomas F. Granahan and David A. Maney, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Cason v. State, Fla.App. 2d 1968, 211 So.2d 604; Fraterrigo v. State, 1942, 151 Fla. 634, 10 So.2d 361; Williams v. State, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 654.

LILES, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

285 CA 11-02144 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

DEBORAH VOSS, PROP-CO, LLC, CLASSI PEOPLE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SERTINO’S CAFÉ, AND DREAM PEOPLE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SHIVER MODEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER
THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, D.R. CASEY CONSTRUCTION CORP., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

DIRK J. OUDEMOOL, SYRACUSE, FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (KAREN J. KROGMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT D.R. CASEY CONSTRUCTION CORP.
MURA & STORM, PLLC, BUFFALO (SCOTT D. STORM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered September 27, 2011. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Empire Ins. Co. v Food City , 167 AD2d 983, 984).

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard J. FAGOT.

No. 61073.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 29, 1977.

In re: Leonard J. Fagot, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing that the trial court abused its discretion.
EXHIBIT 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a
security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an
accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement.

On
June 25, 2002, the trust announced the termination of its engagement of Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent auditors upon the trustee's appointment of KPMG LLP to serve as
the trust's independent auditors for fiscal 2002. For more information, see the trust's current report on Form 8-K dated June 25, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 28, 2002.

After
reasonable efforts, the trust has been unable to obtain the consent of Arthur Andersen, the trust's former independent auditors, as to the incorporation by reference of their
report for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 into XTO Energy Inc.'s previously filed registration statement (No. 333-81849) under the Securities Act, and the
trust has not filed that consent with this Annual Report on Form 10-K in reliance on Rule 437a of the Securities Act of 1933. Because the trust has not been able to obtain
Arthur Andersen's consent, you will not be able to recover against Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in our financial
statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions to state a material fact required to be stated therein.

---

QuickLinks
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Roosevelt ALLEN, a/k/a Roosevelt Goody, a/k/a Robert F. Shaw, Appellee.

No. 77-1041.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Mildred Smith Brown, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.