alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 7, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 01-20953

_______________

MFE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

PlaintiffCounter DefendantAppellee,

VERSUS

TANK CONSULTANTS, INC.,

DefendantCounter ClaimantAppellant.

_________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

m H-00-CV-2302

____________
2

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

MFE Enterprises, Inc., was awarded a

judgment, after a bench trial, for misappropriation of trade secrets by Tank Consultants, Inc.

The latter appeals, raising several issues.

We have read the briefs, applicable portions

of the record, and the pertinent authorities,

and have heard the arguments of counsel.

Finding no error in the careful explanation of

the district court, we affirm, essentially for the

reasons given by that court.

AFFIRMED.

* 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determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
#### BARSCO SUPPLY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. O-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 939 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 939

     To extend the suspension of duty on three-dimensional cameras.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

 Mr. Bilbray introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the suspension of duty on three-dimensional cameras.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON THREE-DIMENSIONAL 
              CAMERAS.

    Heading 9902.90.06 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking out ``12/31/92'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``12/31/96''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to articles 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, after December 
31, 1992.

SEC. 3. CERTAIN ENTRIES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 or any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon 
proper request filed with the appropriate customs officer within one 
hundred and eighty days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
shall--
            (1) reliquidate each entry which occurred after December 
        31, 1992 and before the effective date of this Act at the rate 
        of duty that would have been assessed if that entry had been 
        made on December 31, 1992; and
            (2) make the appropriate refund of duty.
Such reliquidations and refunds shall be made within one hundred and 
eighty days after the date on which the request is made.

                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NHUONG VAN NGUYEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JACKSON LUCKY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56400 

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01452-JGB-KK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Nhuong Van Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action arising out of his prior state court divorce proceedings. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 

dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-56400 

(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s action against defendant 

Judge Lucky and the Riverside County Superior Court for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Nguyen’s action is a 

“forbidden de facto appeal.” Id. at 1163 (“It is a forbidden de facto appeal under 

Rooker-Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal 

wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment 

of that court.”); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (“To 

determine whether an action functions as a de facto appeal, [courts] pay close 

attention to the relief sought by the federal-court plaintiff.” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

Contrary to Nguyen’s contention that he has alleged “fraud upon the court,”

the district court properly concluded that Nguyen did not allege facts sufficient to 

show that an adverse party committed an extrinsic fraud on the state court. See 

Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining 

extrinsic fraud, and recognizing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply 

if extrinsic fraud prevented a party from presenting his or her claim in state court). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing defendant Miller 

because Nguyen voluntarily moved to dismiss Miller under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(2). See Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 
3 18-56400 

145 (9th Cir. 1982) (setting forth standard of review); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(2) (explaining that an “action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request . . .

by court order, on terms that the court considers proper”). 

Nguyen’s contention that Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) provides 

federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action is unpersuasive. 

Nguyen’s motion to vacate the judgment (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
#### Donald Lee TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-333.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule
13a- 14(a) /15d- 14(a) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of G&K Services, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    By:
    /s/ Jeffrey L. WrightJeffrey L. Wright, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Marshall HINCHMAN v. LOCAL UNION #130, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS.

No. 54161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: Local Union # 130, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles, 284 So.2d 78.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

Writ granted as a matter of right because of a conflict between Courts of Appeal.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 178

Referring the bill (H.R. 2196) for the relief of John W. Ruth, Sr., to

the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Referring the bill (H.R. 2196) for the relief of John W.

Ruth, Sr., to the chief judge of the United States Court

of Federal Claims.

1 Resolved, That the bill (H.R. 2196) entitled ‘‘A bill

2 for the relief of John W. Ruth, Sr.’’, now pending in the

3 House of Representatives, together with all the accom4 panying papers, is referred to the chief judge of the United

5 States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to section 1492

6 of title 28, United States Code, for proceedings in accord7 ance with section 2509 of such title.

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-119198, 333-121004, 333-122433 and 333-122693) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 333-113889) of our reports dated March 15, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Apollo Gold Corporation and managements report on the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Apollo Gold
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Vancouver, British Columbia
March 15, 2005
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2180/2005

of 23 December 2005         

fixing the amount of private storage aid for certain fishery products in the 2006 fishing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/2000 of 21 December 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards the grant of private storage aid for certain fishery products (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 2006 fishing year the amount of private storage aid, referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, for the products listed in Annex II to that Regulation shall be as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2005.

For the Commission

Joe BORG            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22. Regulation as amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

(2)OJ L 326, 22.12.2000, p. 30.

----
#### Robert D. ALLEN and Edda Allen, his wife, Appellants, v. Ronald M. SCOTT, Appellee.

No. HH-5.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 28, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1978.

Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Port St. Joe, for appellants.

J. Ben Watkins of Watkins & Watkins, Apalachicola, for appellee.

SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellants Allen successfully resisted ap-pellee Scott’s claim for a mechanic’s lien, but the trial court denied the Allens’ post-trial motion for attorney’s fees. That was error. Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1977) requires an award of reasonable fees to the prevailing party for the services of his or her attorney. *Charter Development Corp. v. Eversole,*342 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Appellants’ other point on appeal is without merit.

REVERSED and REMANDED to award appellants a reasonable fee for their attor*1113ney’s representation on the mechanic’s lien claim in the trial court. No consideration need be given to appellate services, for which no fee request was presented to this court.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
#### Doris R. MARTIN et al. v. Joseph GARLOTTE et al.

No. 53164.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Doris R. Martin, et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary. 270 So.2d 2S2.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed December 11, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00706-CV

____________

ANGLO-DUTCH PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND ANGLODUTCH (TENGE), LLC, Appellants/Cross-Appellees

V.

GREENBERG PEDEN, P.C., AND GERALD J. SWONKE,

Appellees/Cross-Appellants

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2004-20712

ABATEMENT ORDER

Both the Anglo-Dutch parties and the Greenberg parties are appealing from 

a final judgment signed May 13, 2014. On December 8, 2014, the parties filed a 

joint motion for an extension of time to file their opening briefs, or alternatively, a 

request that the appeal be abated to permit the parties to pursue settlement 

discussions. We GRANT the alternative relief, vacate the current briefing 
schedule, and order the appeal ABATED until January 30, 2015.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active 

docket until January 30, 2015. The appeal will be reinstated on our active docket at that 

time, and the parties’ opening briefs will be due January 30, 2015. If the parties reach a 

settlement agreement, the parties shall advise the court of the settlement as soon as 

practicable, and the appeal will be reinstated when the parties file a motion to dismiss the 

appeal or other dispositive motion. The court will also consider a motion to reinstate the 

appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.
#### Interdiction of Anastasia P. WILLIAMS.

No. 54522.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 5, 1974.

In re: Henderson Williams applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 288 So.2d 401.

Writ denied. The result is correct.
#### Milton P. CASTER, M. D., Petitioner, v. Marian L. WILLIAMS, as surviving widow of Thomas Wendell Williams, Deceased, and Marian L. Williams, as mother and next friend of Thomas Wendell Williams, Jr., Helen Rochelle Williams and Karen Marie Williams, minors and surviving children of Thomas Wendell Williams, Deceased, Respondents.

No. 69-745.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of G&K Services, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    By:
    /s/ Jeffrey L. WrightJeffrey L. Wright, Executive Vice
President, 
Chief Financial Officer
and Director(Principal Financial Officer)
#### John MILLER, Petitioner, v. Gina C. MILLER, Respondent.

No. 43395.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 271 So.2d 824.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
#### THE STATE *vs.*DANIEL TILGHMAN.

The defendant was indicted for stealing wood, the property of Mr. Thompson.

The taking was proved, and on a question concerning the right of property, the witness said he had purchased the wood of Mr. McCaulley, and had a bill of sale for it.

Msher, for the prisoner,

now objected that any other evidence of property should be given than the bill of sale; and he cited *State*
      *496vs. *Burris,*where on an indictment for aiding a slave to escape, paroi evidence of the property in the slave was excluded, when it appeared that there was a bill of sale.

*Booth, jr.,*

contended, that in prosecutions for larceny,, possession had always been considered sufficient evidence of property.

*The Court*divided on the question.

Court.

Burris was indicted for enticing away the slave of Jonathan Green ; and on the trial it was necessary of course to prove the status or condition of the negro woman. Her slavery did not appear, either from the possession of her, or from her color. The presumption of law was the contrary, as freedom is presumed. Such presumption is not rebutted by the fact that the person was in the possession of, or rendering service to, another. He might be so as an hireling. His condition must, therefore, be shown, and where that appears to be evidenced by writing, the writing must be produced, as the best evidence.

But possession of a mere chattel is prima facie evidence of property, and has always been admitted, without further proof of property.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 11

                      METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND 1998

                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                               1999        1998
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
<S>                                                                                         <C>         <C>
Loss per common share--Basic (A):
  Net loss................................................................................  $  (11,270) $  (22,963)
  Cumulative convertible preferred stock dividend requirement.............................      (3,752)     (3,752)
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
  Net loss attributable to common stock shareholders......................................  $  (15,022) $  (26,715)
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
Weighted average common stock shares outstanding during the period........................      69,123      68,572
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
Loss per common share--Basic:
  Net loss attributable to common stock shareholders......................................  $    (0.22) $    (0.39)
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
                                                                                            ----------  ----------
</TABLE>

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

(A) In calculating diluted earnings per share, no potential shares of common
    stock are to be included in the computation of diluted earnings per share
    when a loss from continuing operations available to common stockholders
    exists. For the three months ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, the Company had
    a loss from continuing operations.

                                       76
## TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

DECEMBER 15 , 2014

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

and

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory