alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

May 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-51202 Summary Calendar

P V PATEL, M D, Individually; P V PATEL MD, A Profession a l
Association; THE HEART CENTER; ECHO LAB INC; ASSOCIATES OF MIDLAND

CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTER NAL MEDICINE, also known as Midland Cardiovascul, A Professional Association,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

VERSUS

MIDLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER; MEMORIAL HEART AND
VASCULAR INSTITUTE; PERMIAN CARDIOLOGY GROUP; STEPHEN BROWN, M D;
MICHAEL MILLER, M D; JAY MENDEZ, M D; DONALD LOVEMAN, M D; HAROLD
RUBIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas, Midland

(MO-99-CV-159)

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In Jul y, 2002, another panel of this Court affirmed the

district court ’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the2

defendants on all of Dr. Patel’s claims and remanded this case back

to the district c ourt for a determination of defendants’

entitlement to attorneys fees and defense costs under 42 U.S.C.A.

§11113 and the Texas Peer Review Statute, TEX. OCC. CODE ANN.

§160.008(c). On October 23, 2002, the district court entered its

order awarding attorneys fees and costs to the respective

defendants in the amounts therein stated; and the Patel Plaintiffs

have now appealed that order to this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the supplemental brief,

the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself.

For the reasons stated by the district court in its Order filed on

October 23, 2002, we affirm the grant of attorneys fees and costs

in the amounts therein stated. We decline the invitation of

defendants to remand this case back to the district court again for

determination of attorneys fees on this appeal. AFFIRMED.
#### Sidney McDOWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 12, 1971.

George Ralph Miller, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Sidney McDowell appeals from a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree, and assigns as error: 1. Admission into evidence of a certain pistol, and 2. Admission into evidence of a statement made by appellant.

The record reflects without contradiction that appellant entered into a dwelling house where a number of people were congregated and demanded from decedent the keys to an automobile that he had sold decedent or the money owed upon same. It is obvious from the record that tension was in the air because the persons congregated in the room immediately dispersed as defendant pulled out a pistol and began shooting his victim.

Appellant's primary defense may be summed up in the following testimony adduced :

> “Q. Did you go down there then to the man’s house?

> (BY DEFENDANT)

> “A: I went down to his house and I knocked on the door and they opened the door and I went in and when I went in all of them ran out of the house, and so I asked Mr. Joe Lewis, I told him, I said I came after my money or the car one and he reached for his pocket and I shot him.”

Decedent had no lethal weapon upon his person.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the judgment of conviction. As to the two points posed by appellant on appeal, the appellant himself identified the pistol in a statement to the arresting officers after being fully and thoroughly instructed as to *799each and every constitutional right he possessed. We find that the questions posed are without merit.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleases2010 Census

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB07-DR.07sp**
**Contact:**  Stacy GimbelOficina de Información Pública(301) 763-3030 (phone)(301) 763-3762 (fax)(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov

## PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA:  JUEVES 5 DE ABRIL DE 2007

## Aviso Para La Prensa — La Oficina del Censo de los Estados Unidos Inaugura el Ensayo General del Censo del 2008 

### La Subsecretaria de Comercio Asistirá a los Eventos en Fayetteville

*   Oficina Local del Censo en Fayetteville *

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
# C_2013111EN.01000101.xml

| 18.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6833 — Goldman Sachs/TPG Lundy/Britannia Living Group Limited)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 111/01

On 8 March 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6833. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6833. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERLY
REPORT FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                            8791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    70832
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1063
<INVENTORY>                                      30706
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                120658
<PP&E>                                           19243
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  199433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           117445
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         64386
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5854)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     58532
<SALES>                                         118760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                118760
<CGS>                                            68470
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    68470
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 55955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6451)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       409
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6860)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7485

JARON BRICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. RAY ORMOND, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00960-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: March 14, 2019 Decided: March 19, 2019

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jaron Brice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jaron Brice seeks to appeal the district court’s order ordering him to notify the 

court how he sought to proceed with his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen 

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Brice seeks to 

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Finding 

no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we deny Brice’s motion for bail or release, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Morris Lynn, as Executor of Max Linetzky, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County,

April 14, 1953.

*Sterenbuch & Sterenbuch*for executor.

*Joseph TJntermeyer,*special guardian for Stanley Linetzky, an infant.

McGrath, S.

On the judicial settlement of the executor’s account, a construction is sought of the following paragraph of the will: ' ‘ Second: I hereby give, devise and bequeath to my grandchild, Stanley Linetzky, the sum of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars, which is on deposit with Dollar Savings Bank at 121 East 170th Street Branch, which bank book is in my name in trust for Stanley Linetzky.”

The decedent had on deposit in his individual name with the Dollar Savings Bank approximately $2,400 which sum was withdrawn shortly before his death. At no time had he ever opened an account in his name in trust for his grandchild in the Dollar Savings Bank or any other bank.

It is the contention of the executor and the special guardian that the bequest is a demonstrative legacy and therefore that Stanley Linetzky is entitled to receive the sum of $500 out of *164the general funds of the estate. If this is so, one son of the decedent will be excluded from sharing in the estate as the will provides for him only in the event that the remainder and residue exceed a certain sum.

In *Giddings*v. *Seward*(16 N. Y. 365) the will of the testator provided in part: “I give and bequeath unto my beloved mother, Antha Seward, the sum of twelve hundred dollars and interest on the same, contained in a bond and mortgage given to me by Orren W. Seward and Caroline his wife, and dated the third day of January, 1847.” The court held this provision to be a demonstrative legacy, it being noted that the bond and mortgage was in the principal sum of $1,200. This point of the decision was approved in *Crawford*v. *McCarthy*(159 N. Y. 514, 520; see, also, note to decision of *Newton*v. *Stanley,*28 N. Y. [1881 ed.], 61, 66).

Surrogate Collins, New York County, in *Matter of Kuhr*(N. Y. L. J., Feb. 1,1950, p. 401, col. 3) considered the following provision: “I give and bequeath to my beloved niece, Frances Eodriguez of 334 East 9lst Street, Borough of Manhattan, City and State of New York, Five thousand dollars with interest the money which I have already placed in trust for her in Central Savings Bank, Broadway & 73rd Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York.” At the date of death of the decedent the described account had a balance of only $973.41. The court held this bequest to be a demonstrative legacy.

In the light of the afore-mentioned decisions, the court accepts the contention of the executor and the special guardian.

Proceed accordingly.
Exhibit 10.1






 







$50,000.00


July 15, 2016
















Promissory Note










As hereinafter agreed Grote Molen, Inc., jointly and severally, promises to pay to the order of David N. Nemelka Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). And it is hereby agreed that the said amount ($50,000.00) shall be payable upon demand. Interest shall accrue at a rate of six percent (6%) per annum and will be charged on the unpaid balance until the whole amount of the principal and interest is paid. There shall be no penalty for early payment of this note.










Should default be made in the payment of the demand note then the whole unpaid amount shall become immediately due and payable; and in the event default is made and said note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection or suit is brought on the same, then the undersigned agrees to pay all costs and attorney's fees that might be incurred. If there is a lawsuit, borrower agrees upon lender's request to submit to the jurisdiction of the county of Bannock County, the State of Idaho. This note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho.









	 	
UNDERSIGNED:


	 	 
	 	 
	 	
 /s/ John B. Hofman


	 	
John B. Hofman, President


	 	
Grote Molen, Inc.
### GILA 

### RIVER INDIANCOMMUNITY Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Program 

### P.O. Box 

### 97 

## i Sacaton, 

## AZ. 85247 ! Office: (520) 562-2234 Fax: (520) 562-2245

Date: 

### CQ 

# - 2fi 

## -06 To: District

. 

## 7 We would like to request placement on the agenda for the upcoming Community meeting on 

## - 10- 

### oCn

# . The air quality program will make a presentation on thefollowing

The presentation will be given 

### by 

# ~~~~~Go Please call Janet Travis at (520) 562-2234 ext. 286 to confirm placementon the agenda. 

### Thank-yo

## u
VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the 

City of Richmond on Thursday the 1st day of July, 2021.

Present: All the Justices

Endalkachew Merid, Appellant,

against Record No. 200799

Court of Appeals No. 1145-19-4

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

Upon an appeal from a judgment

rendered by the Court of Appeals of 

Virginia.

In this case, we awarded Endalkachew Merid an appeal from the judgment of the Court 

of Appeals, which affirmed his convictions for first degree murder and abduction by force. See

Merid v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 104, 119 (2020).

We have considered the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, and for the reasons

stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the judgment.*

This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and certified to the Court of Appeals 

of Virginia and the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria.

 A Copy,

 Teste:

Douglas B. Robelen, Clerk

 By:

Deputy Clerk

* The Supreme Court of the United States decided Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___, 141 

S. Ct. 1596 (2021), after the Court heard oral argument in this case. The Court finds that the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is consistent with Caniglia.
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CFC International, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Dennis W. Lakomy, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.



|                      |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Dennis W. Lakomy                                
|                      |  | Dennis W. Lakomy                                    
|                      |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by CFC International, Inc., and will be retained by CFC International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.



29
# C_2012345EN.01000201.xml

| 13.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6606 — Toshiba/IBM's Retail Stores Solutions business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 345/03

On 29 June 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6606. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6606. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50916 Summary Calendar

**Lane Smith; Jennifer Taylor**

**- Smith,** 
Plaintiffs

— Appellants **,**

versus
**Carla Clark,** Individually **,** Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CV

- 675

Before **Haynes, Willett,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Lane Smith and Jennifer Tayl o r

- Smith appeal the district court’s dismissal of their First Amendment retaliation claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed eral Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 3 88 (1971) , against Carla Clark

. We have not recognized a Bivens claim in the First

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 26, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50916 Document: 00515835790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2021No. 20

- 50916

2 Amendment retaliation context, and we need not decide this issue here. Because Smith and Taylor

- Smith failed to meaningfully allege the claim or to plead enough facts to establish its facial plausibility, we **AFFIRM** the district court’s dismissal

. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“ A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the def endant is liable for the misconduct alleged

. . . . Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant ’ s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Case: 20-50916 Document: 00515835790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2021
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-170-CV

PERFORMANCE TRAILERS, INC. APPELLANT

V.

LAURA PICKERING, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES

VIRGIL PICKERING, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND KATHY LEA PICKERING AS

INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF 

THE ESTATE OF RICKEY CHARLES

PICKERING, DECEASED

----------

FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Appellant Performance Trailers, Inc.’s Unopposed

Motion To Dismiss Appeal.@ It is the court=s opinion that the motion should be 

granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 

43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 30, 2010
No. 00-7293.

#### McComas *v.*Williams, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.