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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

** 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11308

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIE SHERMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAIME QUINTANILLA, Captain; 

SAMUEL KAMER, Correctional Officer III,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CV-226

- - - - - - - - - -

June 8, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie Sherman, Texas state prisoner # 593654, challenges

the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915 dismissal as frivolous of

his pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights action, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Sherman contends that the district court abused

its discretion in determining that his claims were barred by Heck

v. Humphrey.

**
No. 97-11308

-2-

As to Sherman’s claims that false disciplinary proceedings

were filed against him because he is an African-American and that

the disciplinary hearing procedures violated his due-process

rights, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

ordering dismissal pursuant to Heck. See Edwards v. Balisok, 117

S. Ct. 1584, 1587-89 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500 (1973). However, the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing Sherman’s retaliation claim under Heck. See Woods v.

Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S.

1084 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and

remand for further proceedings in connection with Sherman’s claim

that disciplinary proceedings were brought against him in

retaliation for his filing grievances.

Sherman additionally argues that the district court erred in

ordering dismissal without first considering the question whether

Kamer and Quintanilla were entitled to qualified immunity

pursuant to Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Contrary to Sherman’s assertions, Boyd does not require a

threshold inquiry into qualified immunity; instead, it states

that a district court should, when feasible, consider the

application of absolute immunity prior to conducting a Heck

analysis. Id. Sherman has not demonstrated that such an inquiry

was feasible in this case.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 57982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-23236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-BC-0046]

Building Energy Codes Cost Analysis

Correction

    In notice document 2011-23236 beginning on page 56413 in the issue 
of Tuesday, September 13, 2011 make the following correction:
    On page 56422 the heading ``Table 1. Cash flow components'' should 
read ``Table 7. Cash flow components''.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-23236 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-P
```
No. 07-15-00200-CR

Destany Jenee Liles

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 251st District Court

 of Randall County

December 29, 2015

Opinion by Justice Campbell

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 29, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

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

o O o

FILE COPY
**Exhibit21.1**

 

**APPLIANCERECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.**

 

**Subsidiariesas of January 3, 2004**

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**                                  |   | **Jurisdiction of`  Incorporation** |   | **Percent Voting  Securities Owned** |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                    |   |                                |   |                                 |   |
| Appliance Recycling Centers of America-California, Inc. |   | California                          |   | 100                                  | %      |
|                                                    |   |                                |   |                                 |   |
| ARCA of St. Louis, Inc.                                 |   | Missouri                            |   | 100                                  | %      |

 

----
#### Fred S. LEWIN, Appellant, v. U. S. INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-546.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1973.

J. H. Kaiser and Arnaldo Velez, Hialeah, for appellant.

Smathers & Thompson and James L. Armstrong, III, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Elsberry v. Sexton, 61 Fla. 162, 54 So. 592; Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341; Mann v. Thompson, Fla.App. 1958, 100 So.2d 634; Williams v. Faile, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 599; Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 492; Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 777; Buyer Finance Corporation v. Oliveros, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 451; Summerfield v. Sullivan, N.Y.S.Ct.1908, 113 N.Y.S. 552; McGovern v. Madame Elize, Inc., 137 Misc. 599, 244 N.Y.S. 169; Vol. 3, Williston on Contracts, 3rd Ed., § 533A, page 808.
#### CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, etc., Petitioner, v. DADE COUNTY, etc., Respondent.

No. 43641.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 438.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### In re ESTATE of Eddie HENRY, Deceased. Hilda HENRY, Appellant, v. Stuart WILSON, Executor of the Estate of Eddie Henry, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1306.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3639]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum E&P Research Cooperative

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 16, 1997, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq., (``the Act''), Petroleum E&P 
Research Cooperative (``Cooperative'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the 
nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are: 
Texas Engineering Experiment Station, a component of the Texas A&M 
University System; Amoco Production Company, Houston, TX; ARCO 
Exploration and Production Technology, Plano, TX; Exxon Production 
Research Company, Houston, TX; Mobil Technology Company, Farmers 
Branch, TX; Shell E&P Technology Company, Houston, TX; and Texaco Group 
Inc., Houston, TX. The Cooperative was formed by a written agreement 
dated October 16, 1996, to develop new and improved technology to meet 
the needs of the exploration and production functions of the petroleum 
industry in areas where joint research is appropriate. Membership is 
open to other companies that (directly or through affiliates) derive 
substantial revenues from petroleum exploration and production 
activities and do not receive significant revenues from involvement in 
the petroleum service industry.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-3639 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2565 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow manufacturers 

and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods to animal 

testing to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a drug, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2021 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself, Mrs. LURIA, Ms. MACE, Ms. SHERRILL, and Mr. 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

allow manufacturers and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods to animal testing to investigate 

the safety and effectiveness of a drug, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FDA Modernization 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2565 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES. 

2 Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

3 Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (b)(5)(B)(i)(II), by striking 

5 ‘‘animal’’ and inserting ‘‘nonclinical tests or stud6 ies’’; 

7 (2) in subsection (i)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘(in9 cluding tests on animals)’’; and 

10 (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘ani11 mal or human studies’’ and inserting ‘‘nonclin12 ical tests or studies’’; and 

13 (3) after subsection (y), by inserting the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(z) NONCLINICAL TEST OR STUDY DEFINED.—For 

16 purposes of this section, the term ‘nonclinical test or 

17 study’ means a test or study that is most likely to predict 

18 human response based on scientific evidence and occurs 

19 before or during the clinical trial phase of the investigation 

20 of the safety and effectiveness of a drug. Such test or 

21 study may include the following: 

22 ‘‘(1) Cell-based assays. 

23 ‘‘(2) Organ chips and microphysiological sys24 tems. 

25 ‘‘(3) Sophisticated computer modeling. 

26 ‘‘(4) Other human biology-based test methods. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2565 IH

1 ‘‘(5) Animal tests.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

A. GADLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A 

YOUNG ENVIRONMENT LEARNING 

CENTER, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND 

INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

TAX SERVICES, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 52 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32

                          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 The Connecticut Light and Power
Company (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we,
Cheryl W. Grise, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and John H.
Forsgren, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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 registrant.

/s/ Cheryl W. Grise
    (Signature)
    Cheryl W. Grise
    Chief Executive Officer

/s/ John H. Forsgren
    (Signature)
    John H. Forsgren
    Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer

November 7, 2003

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and
will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### CITY NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH v. MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT CORP.

No. 37995.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JUDY C. PARKER

Justice

LAWRENCE M. DOSS

Justice

ALEX YARBROUGH

Justice

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx

BOBBY RAMIREZ

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

April 20, 2023

Steven W. Conder

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center

401 West Belknap Street, 4th Floor

Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Darwin Gerod Grant

TDCJ-ID#02411436

Preston E. Smith Unit

1313 CR 19

Lamesa, TX 79331

Bryant Cabrera

CABRERA LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.

2888 Medlin Drive

Arlington, TX 76015

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-22-00291-CR, 07-22-00292-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 1610010D, 1700424D

Style: Darwin Gerod Grant Jr. v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Conder, Mr. Cabrera, and Mr. Grant:

The Court this day issued an opinion and judgments in the referenced appeals. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 48.

Pursuant to Section 51.204(b)(2) of the Texas Government Code, exhibits on file with 

this Court, if any, will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case or at an earlier 

date if ordered by the Court.

Very truly yours,

Bobby Ramirez

Bobby Ramirez, Clerk

cc: Honorable Elizabeth Beach (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Thomas A. Wilder (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

June 15, 2001

George S. Cary, Esq.

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20006-1801

Re: Lafarge S.A., et al.

 File No. 001-0112

 Docket C-4014

Dear Mr. Cary:

This is to notify you that the Commission has appointed Daniel E. Somes to serve as the

Great Lakes Hold Separate Trustee and William M. Troutman to serve as the Lime Hold Separate

Trustee on June 15, 2001, in the above-referenced matter.

By direction of the Commission.

Benjamin I. Berman

Acting Secretary

cc: Daniel E. Somes

 Apartment E

 4287 Marin Woods

 Port Clinton, OH 43452

 William M. Troutman

 411 East Mac Ewen Drive 

 Osprey, FL 34229
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68355-68356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34089]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Treasury Order Number 150-31]


Delegation--Limited Referral Authority for Advice in Undercover 
Operations and Approval of Consensual Monitoring Requests

December 19, 1997.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, 
including the authority vested by 31 U.S.C. 321(b) and sections 6103, 
7801, 7802(a) and 7803(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, it is 
hereby ordered that:
    1. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to refer 
matters involving potential violations of law to the Department of 
Justice for the limited purpose of ensuring legal, ethical, and 
prosecutorial uniformity in the application of undercover techniques 
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding entitled ``Internal Revenue 
Service, Undercover Review Committee'' entered into by the Deputy 
Attorney General and the Commissioner in August 1995, or any successor 
memorandum. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue may redelegate this 
authority.
    2. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to refer 
requests for approval of consensual monitoring to the Department of 
Justice as provided in the Attorney General's Memorandum to Heads and 
Inspectors General of Executive Departments and Agencies entitled 
``Procedures for Lawful, Warrantless Interceptions of Verbal 
Communications'' dated November 7, 1983, or any successor memorandum. 
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue may redelegate this authority.
    3. The limited referral authority granted to the Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue by this Order shall terminate with respect to each 
matter so referred once the advice concerning undercover techniques is 
received or once approval for use of consensual monitoring is obtained.
    4. This Order does not authorize the Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue to refer any matter, including matters

[[Page 68356]]

within the scope of paragraphs 1. and 2. above, to the Department of 
Justice for purposes of prosecution, grand jury investigation, or any 
action other than those defined in paragraphs 1. and 2; such authority 
shall remain with the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service in 
accordance with existing delegations.
Robert E. Rubin,
Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 97-34089 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2675]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Subcommittee on Safety of Life 
at Sea; Working Group on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers; 
Meeting Notice

    The Working Group on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers 
(DSC) of the Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) will conduct 
an open meeting at 9:30 AM on Wednesday, January 21, 1998, in Room 
2415, at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20593-0001. The purpose of the meeting is to finalize 
preparations for the Third Session of the DSC Subcommittee of the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) which is scheduled for 
February 9-13, 1998, at the IMO Headquarters in London.
    The agenda items of particular interest are:
    a. Amendment 29 to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods 
(IMDG) Code, its Annexes and Supplements including harmonization of the 
IMDG Code with the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of 
Dangerous Goods.
    b. Implementation of Annex III of the Marine Pollution Convention 
(MARPOL 73/78), as amended.
    c. Revision of the format of the IMDG Code.
    d. Amendments to SOLAS chapters VI and VII to make the IMDG Code 
mandatory.
    e. Amendments to SOLAS chapter VII to make the Irradiated Nuclear 
Fuel (INF) Code mandatory.
    f. Implementation of IMO instruments and training requirements for 
cargo-related matters, including revision of resolution A.537(13) and 
development of multimodal training requirements.
    g. Revision of the Emergency Schedules (EmS).
    h. Revision of MSC/Circ.613 to include offshore tank containers.
    i. Amendments to the Bulk Solids Code, including evaluation of 
properties of solid bulk cargoes.
    j. Reports on incidents involving dangerous goods or marine 
pollutants in packaged form on board ships or in port areas.
    Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating 
capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by 
writing: Mr. E. P. Pfersich, U.S. Coast Guard (G-MSO-3), 2100 Second 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling (202) 267-1577.

    Dated: December 19, 1997.
Russell A. La Mantia,
Chairman, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-34206 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          876607
<SECURITIES>                                    270241
<RECEIVABLES>                                   437897
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     500666
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2337953
<PP&E>                                         2715203
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1367532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4592158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1185482
<BONDS>                                         201242
<COMMON>                                        188371
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2667086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4592158
<SALES>                                         111248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6208353
<CGS>                                            92160
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    92160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6437516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               19397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (340720)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     14953
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (355673)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (355673)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00710

- CR
Johnny Wayne Sheffield Jr.

v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Cause No. A

- 13

- 5111

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 16 , 2014
#### WATTS BRO. BUILDERS, INC. v. ALTEX READY MIX CONCRETE CORP. ANDERSON DUNHAM, INC. v. JOHN P. CRYER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.

No. 60819.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Hanover Ins. Co. applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 349 So.2d 1304.

Writ denied.