alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bruce P. JONES, Plaintiff, v. Fred C. SCHWENDIMAN, Chief of Driver License Services, Department of Public Safety for the State of Utah, Defendant.

No. 20635.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 27, 1986.

*894Stephen R. McCaughey, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Bruce M. Hale, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Jones appeals the revocation of his driver’s license and requests that this Court order reinstatement of his driving privileges.

Defendant revoked plaintiff’s license under Utah’s implied consent statute, U.C.A., 1953, § 41-6-44.10. After a trial de novo in district court, plaintiff’s license was revoked as of May 6, 1985, for a period of one year.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that he was not properly requested to submit to a chemical test since the arresting officer did not see plaintiff driving the automobile. The test is whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff was in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. *See Ballard v. State, Motor Vehicle Division,*595 P.2d 1302 (Utah 1979). Although it does appear that there were reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that the plaintiff in the instant case was in control of the vehicle, we do not reach the question because the case is now moot.

This Court has held that a case is moot where the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants. *Black v. Alpha Financial Corp.,*656 P.2d 409 (Utah 1982), and cases cited therein. In the present appeal, plaintiff requests only that his driver’s license be reinstated. The revocation was for one year, which period expired on May 6, 1986, and there is nothing in the record to indicate any stay of that order during the appeal period.1 Because the order of revocation has now expired by its own terms, we refrain from adjudicating the merits of the issues raised.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs awarded.

1

. The record in the instant case was filed with this Court on June 4, 1986. It does not contain a district court order of stay of judgment pending appeal, and no such order has been sought in this Court. *See*Utah R.App.P. 8. The only reference by the parties to the date of expiration of the revocation order is contained in defendant’s brief, where it is stated that the order "would expire on May 6, 1986."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000949859
<NAME> CFC INTERNATIONAL, INC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          927703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6561657
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (565000)
<INVENTORY>                                    7066173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15267479
<PP&E>                                        19855233
<DEPRECIATION>                               (8988516)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28206108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4632766
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       9967688
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28206108
<SALES>                                       37227333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              37227333
<CGS>                                         22984895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6484195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1470723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1244000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              228909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4814611
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1831141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2983470
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2983470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50441 Conference Calendar

__________________
ROBERT L. HUDGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; MILINDA BOZARTH, Director, TDCJ-PPD; SCOTT L. COMSTOCK, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-3

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant Robert L. Hudgins, an inmate of the Lockhart Work Facility (LWF), has appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim. He contends that he was entitled to be paroled after he served 180No. 95-50441 -2- days in LWF; and he contends that he has been denied rights to which he is entitled as a preparolee. The district court did not err by dismissing the action, because Hudgins contends that he is entitled to be released from confinement. If an inmate "is challenging a parole board's rules and procedures that affect his release, and resolution would automatically entitle him to accelerated release, then the challenge must be pursued by writ of habeas corpus." Orellana v. Kyle , 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, "because [an inmate] has no liberty interest in obtaining parole in Texas, he cannot complain of the constitutionality of procedural devices attendant to parole decisions" in a § 1983 civil rights action. Id . at 32. Hudgins and appellees Collins and Bozarth question why Wayne Scott was substituted as an appellee in place of Collins. Rule 25(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that when a public officer is a party to an action and while it is pending he ceases to hold that office, "the officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party."
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Cougar
      Biotechnology, Inc. do hereby certify that:




(a)  the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc. for the quarter
      ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(b)  information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Cougar Biotechnology, Inc.




Date: November
                14, 2006
              By:
              /s/ Alan
                H.
                AuerbachAlan
                H. AuerbachTitle:
                President
                and Chief Executive Officer


Date: November
                    14, 2006
                By:
                /s/ Charles
                    R. EylerCharles
                  R. EylerTitle:
                  Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

TRAVIS LE-RON CARRINGTON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00388-JRS-2) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 5, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Travis Le-Ron Carrington, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan 

Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen Wiley 

Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Travis Le-Ron Carrington appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 

Amendment 706. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Carrington, No. 3:00-

cr-00388-JRS-2 (E.D. Va. Jan 15, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
#### Stephen E. GOBISH, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 03-3165.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 23, 2003.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                                  VERITY, INC.
 
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        YEAR ENDED MAY 31,
                                                                    ---------------------------
                                                                     1995      1996      1997
                                                                    -------   ------   --------
<S>                                                                 <C>       <C>      <C>
Primary and Fully Diluted:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding for the period.......    1,399    7,270     10,840
  Common Equivalent Shares pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin
     No. 83.......................................................    2,236      559         --
                                                                    --------  ------    -------
Shares used in per share calculation..............................    3,635    7,829     10,840
                                                                    ========  ======    =======
Net loss before accretion.........................................  $(5,838)  $ (313)  $(17,931)
Accretion to redemption value of mandatorily redeemable
  convertible preferred stock.....................................   (2,081)    (611)        --
Net loss applicable to common stockholders........................  $(7,919)  $ (924)  $(17,931)
                                                                    ========  ======    =======
Net loss per share................................................  $ (2.18)  $(0.12)  $  (1.65)
                                                                    ========  ======    =======
</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. John E. SPELLMAN v. Honorable Frank J. SHEA, Judge, Criminal District Court, Section “G”.

No. 88-KH-2499.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Spellman, John E.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, prohibition, mandamus, supervisory and remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 264-716.

Denied.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-5252 September Term, 2014

 1:13-cv-00635-RLW

Filed On: November 18, 2014

National Association of Manufacturers, et al., 

 Appellants

v.

Securities and Exchange Commission, et al., 

 Appellees

BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown, Griffith,

Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Millett*, Pillard, and Wilkins*, Circuit

Judges; and Sentelle and Randolph, Senior Circuit Judges

O R D E R

 Upon consideration of the petitions for rehearing en banc and the joint response

thereto; and Amnesty International’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief in

support of petition for rehearing en banc and the lodged supplemental brief, it is

ORDERED that that the motion for leave to file is granted. The Clerk is directed

to file the lodged document. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that consideration of the petitions be deferred pending

disposition of the petitions for panel rehearing. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark

Deputy Clerk

*Circuit Judges Millett and Wilkins did not participate in this matter.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2206 

To suspend temporarily the duty on benzoyl chloride. 

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 benzoyl chloride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BENZOYL CHLORIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Benzoyl chloride (CAS No. 

98–88–4) (provided for in 

subheading 2916.32.20) ........ 2.70% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2206 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

___________

No. 96-1948

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Arkansas.

Cody Donald Fitzwater, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

__________

 Submitted: July 19, 1996

 Filed: August 6, 1996

__________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cody Fitzwater pleaded guilty to knowingly and intentionally

manufacturing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At

sentencing, the district court denied Fitzwater's motion for a downward

1

departure under U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.0 or 5K2.11, p.s., and sentenced him to

five months imprisonment followed by two years supervised release, the

first five months of which are to be served in home confinement. Fitzwater

appeals.

The district court's statements at sentencing clearly indicate that

it did not find departure warranted by the facts of this case. Thus, its

refusal to depart was an unreviewable exercise of
-2-

discretion. See United States v. Rawe, 21 F.3d 850, 852 (8th Cir. 1994)

(per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2435 

To suspend temporarily the duty on microcrystalline anatase-type titanium 

dioxide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on microcrystalline anatasetype titanium dioxide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MICROCRYSTALLINE ANATASE-TYPE TITANIUM 

4 DIOXIDE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2435 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Microcrystalline anatase-type 

titanium dioxide, surface 

treated with aluminum, silicon, phosphorous and manganese (CAS No. 13463–37– 

7) (provided for in subheading 3206.11.00) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
China Energy Corporation a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), WuSheng Liu, Chief Accounting
Officer and Secretary of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Company.
|   

/s/ WuSheng
Liu WuSheng LiuChief Accounting
Officer and Secretary Dated: April 13, 2007

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered April 6, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

We find, and the People concede, that the trial court committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over the defense counsel’s objection, a verdict sheet containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon *(see,*CPL 310.20 [2]), but also certain elements of those charges *(see, People v Nimmons,*72 NY2d 830; *People v Owens,*69 NY2d 585; *People v Sotomayer,*173 AD2d 500). In view of this determination it is not necessary to reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2291 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2291

    To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain sawing 
                               machines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain sawing 
                               machines.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SAWING MACHINES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.84.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain sawing machines) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective column period 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>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P.(the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ending Septemmber 30, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Michael J. Mauceli, principal executive officer of Reef Oil & GasPartners, L.P., the managing general partner of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P.,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                 The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m OR 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                 The information contained in the Reporton Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Partnership.

 
| Date: November 19, 2007 | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P.        |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                    | Managing General Partner                 |
|                    |                                     |
|                    | By: Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC |
|                    |                                     |
|                    | /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                   |   |
|                    | Michael J. Mauceli                       |
|                    | Manager and Member                       |
|                    | (principal executive officer)            |

 

 

This certification is not deemed “filed” forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwisesubject to the liability of that section. This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference in anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

 

 

----
#### STATE ex rel. Luther GEORGE v. C. Paul PHELPS, Secretary, Department of Corrections.

No. 89-KH-0160.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re George, Luther;—Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW89 0053; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 324-301.

Treating relator’s substantive claim of entitlement to restoration of good time forfeited as a result of his 1981 conviction for escape, relief is denied.