alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

October 16, 2002 Session

GINNIE LEACH, ET AL. v. TIM TAYLOR, ET AL.

A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Gibson County

No. 7852 The Honorable Clayburn Peeples, Judge

No. W2002-01091-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 30, 2002

Holly Kirby Lillard, J., dissenting separately.

The majority in this case concludes that there are no allegations in the complaint from which

it can be inferred that the Defendants knew the statements regarding the condition of the Decedent’s

body were false. I respectfully dissent.

At the time the statements in question were made, the Defendants had embalmed the body

in preparation for burial, and thus had personal knowledge of its condition. Even if it is assumed that

some of the statements made were the result of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the

process of harvesting organs for transplant, the allegations included some statements about which

there could be no misunderstanding. For example, the Defendants allegedly told Plaintiffs that the

medical personnel who harvested the organs “even took his private parts.” If this statement was

false, the Defendants, having embalmed the body, had to know it. Regardless of the ultimate

explanation for the statements, I believe that the Plaintiffs are entitled to proceed, and that dismissal

based on the pleadings alone is erroneous. Therefore, I would reverse the decision of the trial court.

 

 HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JOHN DRISCOLL

, * No. 13

- 110 V

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Moran

*

v. * Filed: February 11, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle Strait

, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL , for Petitioner;

Heather Pearlman

, U nited States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC

, for

R espondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On February 10, l2015

, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended h is

application to request $25,000.00 , an amount to which respondent does not object.

The Court awards this amount.

On February 7, 2013

, John Driscoll filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influen za vaccine, which he received on September 22, 2011,

caused him to suffer severe sensory motor polyneuropathy. Petitioner received

compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision , filed Nov. 10, 2014

.

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Because petitioner received compensation, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’

fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

Petitioner seeks a total of $25,000.00 in atto rneys’ fees and costs for his

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states

that he incurre d no out

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim.

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $25,000.00 in the f orm of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Danielle Strait , for attorneys’ fees

and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357

-

6353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
**EXHIBIT 32.1****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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of WorldAir Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year endedDecember 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Randy J. Martinez, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    result of operations of the Company.     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuantto Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part ofthe Report or as a separate disclosure document.     /s/ Randy J. Martinez       Randy J. Martinez *President and Chief Executive Officer*March 29, 2005
75
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 27, 2016

No. 04-16-00812-CR

Gary ALVAREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4637B

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has 

NO right of appeal.” We therefore ORDER the trial court clerk to file, within ten days of the date 

of this order, a clerk’s record containing the following documents:

1. All pre-trial motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

2. all documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain, including the 

court’s admonishments, the defendant’s waiver and consent to stipulation 

of testimony, and any other stipulations;

3. the judgment;

4. all post-judgment motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

5. the notice(s) of appeal;

6. the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal; 

7. the criminal docket sheet; and

8. the bill of costs.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk of this 

court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court clerk, 

and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50409

Summary Calendar

 

DIANA SALAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER 

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CV-174

 

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Diana Salas appeals the judgment affirming the decision by the

Commissioner of Social Security to deny her applications for

disability benefits and supplemental security income. Our review

is limited to determining whether the Commissioner applied the

proper legal standards and whether the decision is supported by
2

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Greenspan v.

Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994). We may not reweigh the

evidence or try the issue de novo. See Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d

340, 343 (5th Cir. 1988). The record shows that the ALJ applied

the proper legal standards and that the Commissioner’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence. See Greenspan, 38 F.3d at 236.

Salas argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider the

effects of her migraine headaches and the opinion of the physician

who treated her for those headaches. The administrative record

reflects that there was good cause for not according controlling

weight to Dr. Carmen Montoya’s opinion, which was conclusional and

inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See

Greenspan, 38 F.3d at 237.

Relying on the testimony of Dr. Harold Cooper, the medical

expert (“ME”), Salas argues that the ALJ erred in determining that

she retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform

her past relevant work and in posing a hypothetical question to the

vocational expert without including the limitations that the ME had

attributed to her. The substantial evidence in the administrative

record supports the ALJ’s rejection of the ME’s opinion on Salas’s

limitations. Thus, there was no error with respect to the ALJ’s

determination on Salas’s RFC or in the hypothetical question posed

to the vocational expert.

Salas also argues that the ALJ improperly drew inferences
3

regarding her credibility and the severity of her impairments based

on her failure to obtain treatment or medication due to poverty.

The ALJ’s opinion pointed out discrepancies between Salas’s

assertions and the documented signs, findings, diagnoses, and

treatment of record. The ALJ also pointed out inconsistencies

between Salas’s statements to Dr. Gonzales and her testimony at her

administrative hearing. The ALJ’s credibility determination is

entitled to great deference, Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 164

(5th Cir. 1994), and will not be disturbed on the record before us.

AFFIRMED.
ex_213797.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


NOTE


 


	$1,000,000.00	November 12, 2020



     


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, BLACKBOXSTOCKS INC., a Nevada corporation (“Borrower”) hereby promises to pay to the order of Feenix Venture Partners Opportunity Fund II LP (the “Noteholder”), the principal amount of ONE MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) (or, the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Loan held by the Noteholder) in accordance with the provisions of that certain Loan Agreement dated as of November 12, 2020 (as amended, modified or supplemented, the “Loan Agreement”), by and among Borrower, the Noteholder, the other Lenders party thereto and FVP SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as administrative agent (“Administrative Agent”). Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Loan Agreement.


 


Borrower promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of this Note (this “Note”) at such interest rates and at such times as provided in the Loan Agreement. All payments of principal and interest shall be made to Administrative Agent, for the benefit Noteholder, in immediately available funds by wire, checks or money orders made payable to Administrative Agent in accordance with Section 2.3 of the Loan Agreement. If any amount is not paid in full when due hereunder, such unpaid amount shall bear interest at a rate, to be paid as set forth in the Loan Agreement.


 


This Note is entitled to the benefits of the Loan Agreement and may be prepaid in whole or in part subject to the terms and conditions provided therein. Upon the occurrence and continuation of one or more of the Events of Default specified in the Loan Agreement, all amounts then remaining unpaid on this Note shall become, or may be declared to be, immediately due and payable all as and to the extent provided in the Loan Agreement. The Noteholder may attach schedules to this Note and endorse thereon the date, amount and maturity of its Advances under the Loan Agreement and payments with respect thereto.


 


Borrower, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives diligence, presentment, protest and demand and notice of protest, demand, dishonor and non-payment of this Note.


 


THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.


 


 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK]


 





 










 








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has caused this Note to be executed and delivered and it is effective as of the date first written above.


 


	
			 

				
			BORROWER: 

				
			 

			
	 	 	 
	 	
			BLACKBOXSTOCKS INC., a Nevada corporation

				 
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			By: 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Name: 

				
			Gust Kepler 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Title: 

				
			Chief Executive Officer 

				
			 

			



 


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE TO NOTE]
Exhibit 32.1

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 ICx Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 16, 2010



By:

/S/ COLIN J. CUMMINGColin J. CummingChief Executive Officer




By:

/S/ DEBORAH D. MOSIERDeborah D. MosierChief Financial Officer


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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2041 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2041

 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixture of 1,2 Octanediol and 1,2 
                              Hexanediol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixture of 1,2 Octanediol and 1,2 
                              Hexanediol.

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

SECTION 1. 1,2 OCTANEDIOL AND 1,2 HEXANEDIOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       1,2 Octanediol and  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          1,2 Hexanediol                                                     31/2011.......
                          (CAS No. 1117-86-
                          8) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3824.90.92)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2200 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2200

   To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,6-Bis(2,4-dihydroxybenzyl)-p-
cresol ester with 6-diazo-5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-1-naphthalnenesulfonic acid 
                       and methane sulfonic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,6-Bis(2,4-dihydroxybenzyl)-p-
cresol ester with 6-diazo-5,6-dihydro-5-oxo-1-naphthalnenesulfonic acid 
                       and methane sulfonic acid.

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

SECTION 1. 2,6-BIS(2,4-DIHYDROXYBENZYL)-P-CRESOL ESTER WITH 6-DIAZO-
              5,6-DIHYDRO-5-OXO-1-NAPHTHALNENESULFONIC ACID AND METHANE 
              SULFONIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      2,6-Bis(2,4-        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        dihydroxybenzyl)-                                                  31/2011.......
                        p-cresol ester
                        with 6-diazo-5,6-
                        dihydro-5-oxo-1-
                        naphthalnenesulfo
                        nic acid and
                        methane sulfonic
                        acid (provided
                        for in subheading
                        2927.00.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1910 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1910

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on calcium chloride phosphor 
                  activated by manganese and antimony.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

  Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on calcium chloride phosphor 
                  activated by manganese and antimony.

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

SECTION 1. CALCIUM CHLORIDE PHOSPHOR ACTIVATED BY MANGANESE AND 
              ANTIMONY.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to calcium chloride phosphor 
activated by manganese and antimony) is amended by striking the date in 
the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Mustafa Nadaf d/b/a Discount

Mini MartAppellant/s

Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality and

Gregg Abbott, Attorney

General for the State of /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2014

No. 04-13-00068-CV

Mustafa NADAF d/b/a Discount Mini Mart,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and Gregg Abbott,

Attorney General for the State of Texas,

Appellees

From the 250th District Court, Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. D-1-GN09-002367

The Honorable Orlinda L. Naranjo, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record is hereby GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on January 8th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

 ___________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41008 Conference Calendar

RANDY JOE WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:01-CV-325

-------------------- February 20, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Randy Joe White, federal prisoner # 61041-180, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced by his prior burglary conviction under the Sentencing Guidelines because that conviction was not a “crime of violence” within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminals Act. White does not renew his challenge to his sentence and indictment based on Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and that claim is waived. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).No. 01-41008 -2- White’s challenge to the calculation of his sentence under the guidelines is a nonconstitutional one which could have been raised on direct appeal and thus could not have been considered in a § 2255 motion. See United States v. O’Keefe , 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Towe , 26 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 1994). Because he could not raise it a § 2255 motion, a fortiori , White is precluded from raising the claim in this § 2241 petition. The district court’s dismissal of the petition is therefore AFFIRMED.