alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 9, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble J ohn F. Nang le, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Missouri, sitting by

designation. [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11483

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -003 66 -C R -O D E -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s M O N I Q U E S H E R R E E W H E A T , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 9, 2006) B efore B IR C H and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and N A N G L E , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

O n app ea l , W heatra i se s the fol l ow i ng i ss ues: (1) w hether the evi dence w as s uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove , be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt , W he a t ’ s gui l tof c ons pi r a c y a nd p o ssessi o n o f d o cu m en tm ak i n g i m p l em en t s w i th i n t en tt o p ro d u ce fal se i de nti f i c a ti on doc um e nt s ; ( 2) w he the rW he a t ’ s r i ghtt o afa i rtr i a l w a s vi ol a t e d by the a dm i s s i on of

e vi de nc e r e gar di ng nonpa y m e ntof s t a t e s a l e s t a x a nd fe de r a l a nd s t a t e i nc om e t a xe s ; ( 3) w he the rt a ki ng j udi c i a lnoti c e a nd the a dm i s s i on of te s tim o n y r e g ar d in g s ta te la w c o n c e r n in g fa ls e id e n tif ic a tio n d o c u m e n ts c ons ti tut e d pr e

j udi c i a l e rr or ; ( 4) w he the ra dm i s s i on of t e s ti m ony r e gar di ng p u rp o r te d p r o f

it m ar g in s w a s p r e

ju d ic ia l e rr o r ; ( 5 ) w h e th e rW h e a t’s r ig h t to afa ir tr i a l w a s vi ol a t e d by the j ur y i ns truc ti ons r e gar di ng i nt e nta nd C ount s 5 a nd 7; ( 6) w hether W heat ’ s r i gh tt o a fa i r tri alw as vi ol at ed by fa i l i ng t o i ncl ud e herprop osed ju r y in s tru c tio n s a s to h e rth e o r y o f th e c a s e ; ( 7 ) w h e th e rap p lic a tio n o f th e “r o le in the offens e” or “ cr i m i nal l i vel i ho od ” e nh ance m ent s w er e proper i n l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 45 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 74 9 (20 05 ); (8) w hether the fe dera l s ta tu te r e g ar d in g fa ls e id e n tif ic a tio n d o c u m e n ts , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 , is fa c ia lly o v e rb r o a d o rv a g u e ; a n d ( 9 ) w h e th e rth e “c r im in a l liv e lih o o d ” e n h a n c e m e n t, U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .3 , is v a g u e e ith e rfa c ia lly o ra s ap p lie d to W h e a t. A f t e rc ar e f ul c ons i de r a ti on of

the r e c or d a nd the par ti e s ’ br i e fs , a nd ha vi ng e nt e r t a i ne d or a l a r gum e nt , w e di s c e r n no e rr ori n the j udgm e nta nd rul i ngs of the di stri ctcourt , and, ac cordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM .
Docket No. FAA-2012-0189
#### Alex D. FINCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 24, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1971.

Alex D. Finch in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Alex D. Finch, an attorney at law before the Bar of Pinellas County, was adjudicated in contempt of court during a trial wherein he represented a defendant in a criminal matter. Finch was fined $100, $50 of which was suspended.

We have reviewed the record and all matters filed in this cause and believe the court erred in adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt. The record fails to support such action, and we reverse. We hasten to add that the trial judge has full control of the conduct of all trials before him and that contempt is one of the remedies to be used. It is a harsh remedy however and should be used sparingly.

We believe that a more reasonable course would have been a reprimand by the court to the attorney.

Reversed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/2/2023 | Document No. 606827 | PAGE Page 1 of 1 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Microsoft Corp., )

 a corporation, and ) 

) Docket No. 9412 

Activision Blizzard, Inc., )

 a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER GRANTING THIRD AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On February 1, 2023, non-party Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“SIE”) filed a third 

motion to extend the time for it to file a motion to quash or to limit a subpoena served on SIE by 

Respondent Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) (“Motion”). SIE represents that negotiations between 

SIE and Microsoft as to the scope of SIE’s production and a discovery schedule remain ongoing 

and that Microsoft agrees with the relief requested in the Motion. 

Upon review and consideration of the Motion, the Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby 

ORDERED that SIE’s deadline to file a motion to quash or to limit Microsoft’s subpoena is 

extended to February 3, 2023. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: February 2, 2023
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 
 **PaineWebber
R&D Partners III, L.P.**
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 of PaineWebber R&D Partners III, L.P. (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the Period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert J. Chersi, Principal Financial Officer of PaineWebber Development Corp.,
as General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.
 
 
 /s/
ROBERT J. CHERSI
 Robert J.
Chersi
 Chief
Financial Officer
 March 30,
2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4.7b

Participation Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2001, among Dynegy Danskammer,
L.L.C., Danskammer OL LLC, Wilmington Trust Company, Danskammer OP LLC and The
Chase Manhattan Bank.
#### Alfred ARONOVITZ, Trustee, Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

I, Douglas W. Sabra, Chief Financial Officer for ForwardIndustries, Inc. (the "Company") certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1850 that, tothe best of my knowledge:

1.                    the Company's quarterly report onForm 10-QSB  for the three months ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

;

2.                   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

Dated: January 21, 2004

|   | /s/ DOUGLAS W. SABRADouglas W. SabraChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer) |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Memo to Docket 

Subject: Call Between Freeport McMoRan Miami Incorp. (FMMI) and EPA 

Date: May 13, 2014 

Participants: 

Agenda: 

1. Review of Documents sent to EPA 

2. Options for BART 

3. Permitting Schedule 

4. Open discussion 

Summary: 

· This call was a follow-up to the April 29, 2014 meeting between FMMI and EPA. FMMI 

listed the additional materials that it has provided to EPA since that meeting including: 

o the draft ADEQ permit and TSD for the project that includes the converter aisle 

scrubber, 

o CFD for the canopy hood, 

o the extended roofline report, 

o the most recent emissions inventory spreadsheets, and 

o the construction schedule for the hooding and aisle scrubber. 

· EPA reviewed the requirements of the proposed FIP, including the methodology for 

determining compliance with the propose 99.7 percent control efficiency. 

· EPA and FMMI discussed the schedule for review of the proposed revision to FMMI’s 

Title V Permit. 

Name: Organization: 

Chris West FMMI 

Jeff Harrington AMEC (FMMI contractor) 

Eddie Al-Rayes Trinity Consultants (FMMI contractor) 

Jay Spehar FMMI 

Todd Weaver Freeport-McMoRan 

Eugene Chen EPA R9 

Geoffrey Glass 

Manny Aquitania 

EPA R9 

EPA R9 

Charlotte Withey EPA R9
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) Contrack International, Inc. ) ) ) ) Under ContractNo. W912ER-12-C-0011 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 59375, 59554, 59826 59827, 59828,60015 61266

Dirk D. Haire, Esq. Sean Milani-nia, Esq. Rachel M. Severance, Esq.

Fox Rothschild LLP Washington, DC Thomas J. Warren, Esq.

Acting Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Pietro 0. Mistretta, Esq. Daniel K. Bilotti, Esq. James D. Stephens, Esq. Nancy L. Pell, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army EngineerDistrict, Middle East Winchester, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The parties have advised the Board they have resolved the disputes and have requested that the appeals be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the appeals are dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal combinedwith the dismissal order issued in ASBCA No. 61226 leaves no appeals remaining before the Board arising from the performance ofContractNo. W912ER-12-C-0011. The Board commends the parties for their successful efforts to resolve the appeals. Dated: 3 October 2017

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCANos. 59375, 59554, 59826, 59827, 59828, 60015, 61266, Appeals ofContrack International, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
4836-3776-6697.1

No. 01-15-00586-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT

HOUSTON, TEXAS

MACKEY GLEN PETERSON, TONYA PETERSON, DON LESLIE

PETERSON AND LONNY PETERSON, APPELLANT

v.

CAROL ANNE MANLEY, DAVID PATTERSON, SILVERADO SENIOR

LIVING, INC., D/B/A SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR LAND

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL

FOR DEFENDANT, SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC. D/B/A

SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR LAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

I.

Defendant, Silverado Senior Living, Inc. d/b/a Silverado Senior Living

Sugar Land (“Silverado”) hereby designates P. Alan Sanders (Texas Bar No.

17602100) as Lead Counsel of record for this appeal.

II.

P. Alan Sanders is a member in good standing with the State Bar of Texas,

beginning in May 1983.

ACCEPTED

01-15-00586-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/16/2015 4:17:53 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/16/2015 4:17:53 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
4836-3776-6697.1

III.

P. Alan Sanders Texas Bar Number is 17602100 and his office address,

telephone, fax number and email address are as follows:

P. Alan Sanders

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400

24 Greenway Plaza

Houston, Texas 77046

(713) 659-6767 Telephone

(713) 759-6830 Facsimile

alan.sanders@lewisbrisbois.com

IV.

Josh K. Davis will remain as additional counsel of record for Defendant

Silverado.

Respectfully submitted,

LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD &

SMITH, LLP

/s/ P. Alan Sanders

PANNAL ALAN SANDERS

TBN: 17602100

JOSH K. DAVIS

TBN: 24031993

Weslayan Tower, Suite 1400

24 Greenway Plaza

Houston, Texas 77046

(713) 659-6767 Telephone

(713) 759-6830 Facsimile

Alan.Sanders@lewisbrisbois.com

Josh.Davis@lewisbrisbois.com
4836-3776-6697.1

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,

SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING, INC.

D/B/A

SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING SUGAR

LAND

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was

served upon all counsel of record via electronic filing on this 16th day of October,

2015.

Candice L Schwager

The Schwager Law Firm

1417 Ramada Dr.

Houston, Texas 77062

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Philip M. Ross

1006 Holbrook Road

San Antonio, Texas 78218

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Sarah Patel Pacheco

Crain, Caton & James, PC

1401 McKinney Street

1700 Five Houston Center

Houston, Texas 77010

Attorneys for Carol Manley and David Peterson

Jill W. Young

MacIntyre, McCulloch, Stanfield & Young, LLP

2900 Weslayan, Suite 150

Houston, Texas 77027

Guardian Ad Litem
4836-3776-6697.1

W. Russ Jones

Underwood, Jones Scherrer & Malouf, PLLC

5177 Richmond Ave, Suite 505

Houston, Texas 77056

Attorney Ad Litem

/S/ P. Alan Sanders

P. ALAN SANDERS
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 Redesignated § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) by § 804 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No.

104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-40393

_____________________

GERALD A. REESE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARY CHOATE, Sheriff, Bowie County

Sheriff's Dept., in her personal and

individual capacity; ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:95-CV-101

_________________________________________________________________ October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gerald Reese, a Texas prisoner, appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 1 dismissal of his2

Brewerv. Wilkinson , 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993), c ert

. denied

, 510 U.S. 1123

(1994).

3 Lewis v. Casey , 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996).

2 civil rights complaint complaining of (1) denial of access to the courts, and (2) placement

in administrative segregation in violation of the due process and cruel and unusual

punishment clauses. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the complaint as

frivolous in a report sent to Reese on March 12, 199 6. Reese was required to file

objections to the report on or before March 26, 1996. No objections were filed and on

March 27, 1996, the district court issued its judgment of dismissal.

On April 1, 1996 Reese filed a motion for continuance of the time for objecting to

the magistrate judge's report. There was no allegation that the report was received late

or that the factual findings were in error. Reese complains only of an incorrect

application of the law.

The claim of denial of access to the courts was based on the allegations of

inordinate delay and “fast shuffle” treatment accorded in the delivery of three legal texts

Reese acquired from West Publishing Company. If the alleged allegations occurred, a

situation is presented in which prison authorities could take no pride, but such

allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional denial of access to the courts. 2 A

prisoner must show actual legal injury to prevail on an access-to-the-court claim. 3 Reese

makes no such allegations.

The claims of due process and cruel and unusual punishment clause violations are4 See Whittington v. Lynaugh , 842 F.2d 818 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied

, 488 U.S. 840

(1988).

3 equally unavailing. Reese contends that the complaint of administrative segregation

results from the effort by prison authorities to retaliate against him because of the suits

he had filed against authorities and his complaints about the performance of their duties.

These allegations were deemed conclusory and frivolous by the di strict court. We

agree. 4

AFFIRMED.
SNODGRASS

Certified Public Accountants and Consultants

EXHIBIT 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

First West Virginia
Bancorp, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of
June 30, 2010, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity and the consolidated statement
of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 4, 2010 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ S. R. Snodgrass, A.C.
|Wheeling, West Virginia  
|August 13, 2010          

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062
#### Bernard COBIN and Jean Cobin, his wife, and Angus of Palm Beach County, Inc., Appellants, v. FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF WEST PALM BEACH, an association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, and Jack D. Burris, as Trustee, Appellees.

No. 70-275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Knott, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
^
                                  Diamond Hill
                                  ------------
                                  Investments


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
                                             Investor Contact:
                                             James F. Laird
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             614-255-3353
                                             E-mail: (jlaird@diamond-hill.com)

                      DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.
                 REPORTS 2004 RESULTS - REVENUES INCREASE 113%

     Columbus,  Ohio -- March 30, 2005, -- Diamond Hill  Investment  Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ:DHIL) today reported audited results for the year ended December
31, 2004.  Assets under management increased by 109% to $524 million compared
to $250 million at the end of 2003 while investment management revenue
increased by 113% compared to 2003.  Both assets under management and
investment management revenue were driven higher by strong investment returns
in client portfolios.  For the year ended December 31, 2004 all six Diamond
Hill funds ranked in the top quartile in their respective invesetment category.
The Company's net loss for the year was $176,500 or 11 cents per share, an 82%
improvement compared to a net loss of $993,534 or 68 cents per share in 2003.

     Ric Dillon, president and chief investment officer stated, "We have
continued to produce excellent investment returns for our clients, which is
our primary business objective.  In addition, our efforts to market our mutual
funds and managed portfolios have resulted in $223 million in new client
investments in 2004.

				 Three Months Ended	     Year Ended
				 12/31/04  12/31/03	 12/31/04    12/31/03
Investment Management Revenue	$ 821,371   403,908	2,468,490   1,160,584
Net Income (Loss)		$  15,135  ( 43,940)	 (176,500)   (993,534)
Earnings Per Share (diluted)	$   (0.01)    (0.03)	    (0.11)	(0.68)

About Diamond Hill:

     Diamond Hill provides investment management services to individuals and
institutions seeking to preserve and build wealth.  The firm currently manages
mutual funds, seperate accounts and a private investment fund.  For more
information on Diamond Hill, visit www.diamond-hill.com.



                                     ###

            375 North Front Street, Suite 300, Columbus, Ohio 43215
                         614-255-3333  fax 614-255-3363