alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30542

Summary Calendar

 

HURSEN PATIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAUL CONNICK, Jefferson Parish

District Attorney’s Office;

JOHN M. MAMOULIDES, State Official

at Jefferson Parish, Office of

the District Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-618-A

- - - - - - - - - -

February 4, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hursen Patin, Louisiana prisoner # 265731, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and/or for

failure to state a claim. Patin contends that the district court

erred in dismissing his due process, equal protection, and

denial-of-access-to-courts claims arising from the defendants’

refusal to provide to him, free of charge, public records
No. 97-30542 

-2-

pertaining to his state criminal conviction. We have reviewed

the record and Patin’s brief and AFFIRM the district court’s

dismissal of Patin’s claims for essentially the reasons set forth

by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. See

Patin v. Connick, No. 97-0618 (E.D. La. May 13, 1997).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE FINANCE


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Universal Travel Group (the
"Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the
Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
          August 12, 2010
            /s/
      Yizhao ZhangYizhao
      ZhangChief
      Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**








In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of Rotoblock Corporation
      (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the Report), I, Matthias Heinze, Chief Executive Officer, hereby
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





(1)
      the
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Registrant.










Date:
      December 14, 2006     ROTOBLOCK
      CORPORATION





/s/
      Matthias Heinze


By:
      Matthias Heinze, President,


Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.
William Blackham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ J. William Blackham              
|J. William Blackham                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 11, 2005
#### Rep. Charles Emile BRUNEAU, Jr., et al. v. Edwin W. EDWARDS, Governor of the State of Louisiana, et al.

No. 87-CD-0397.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1987.

In re Bruneau, Charles Jr. Rep.; Crane, Carl N. Rep.; Hainkel, John J. Jr. Rep.; Lancaster, Charles D. Jr. Rep.; Scogin, Edward C. Rep.; Dastuque, Quentin D. Rep.; Gee, Terry W. Rep.; Dimos, Jimmy N. Rep.; Landry, Ron Sen.; Osterberger, Kenneth E. Sen.; Louisiana Asphalt Pavement *119Ass’n; Association Gen. Contrs. LA; Louisiana Ass’n. Gen. Contrs.; Louisiana Motor Transport Ass’n; Louisiana Highway Users Fed.; Louisiana Good Roads & Transp.; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No'. 311466.

Denied. Relators have an adequate remedy by appeal. Court of Appeal has indicated that it would grant an expedited appeal upon proper motion.
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 Main Street Restaurant Group,
      Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 26, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
      G. Shrader, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.






/s/
                William G. ShraderWilliam
                G. ShraderChief
                Executive Officer and President





Date:
      March 22, 2006
#### Edith M. Reed, Wife of/and Charles L. KEYWORTH v. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITALS, INC. a/k/a Southern Baptist Hospital.

No. 86-CC-1106.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Reed, Edith M.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 83-4061; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. C-5524.

Granted. Order of trial court is reversed. Plaintiff is entitled to present the testimony of Dr. Waldmann and to have it considered. Locality rule does not apply to hospitals.
#### Bruce TUCKMAN, Appellant, v. The FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellee.

No. 87-1585.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 1, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1988.

*1042Stephen Marc Slepin, of Slepin & Slepin, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Gerald B. Jaski, Gen. Counsel, Linda C. Schmidt, Associate Gen. Counsel, Florida State University, for appellee.

Ronald G. Meyer and Pamela L. Cooper, of Meyer, Brooks & Cooper, Tallahassee, for amicus curiae UFF/FTP-NEA.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant Bruce Tuckman seeks review of an administrative order entered by Florida State University, determining that the university did not breach an employment contract. We agree that the university did not breach the contract by its reassignment of duties, and we affirm the order appealed.

The parties entered into a twelve-month employment contract in September 1984, pursuant to which Tuckman served as dean of the College of Education. This contract specified Tuckman’s salary and classified him as “dean and professor,” but contained no description of Tuckman's duties or responsibilities as dean. In July 1985 Tuck-man was notified by the university that he was being relieved of his responsibilities as dean. He continued to be employed as a tenured professor, retaining full salary and benefits for the remainder of the contract term.

Tuckman contested this action and requested an administrative hearing. The university issued a final order pursuant to informal proceedings, finding that the parties’ contract had not been breached. Tuckman appealed, and this court reversed the university’s order and remanded the case for a formal hearing. *See Tuckman v. Florida State University,*489 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

A formal hearing was then held and the hearing officer found that Tuckman was a faculty member without tenure in a deanship. The hearing officer also found that although the university had committed a technical breach of contract, Tuckman sustained no monetary damages. The university subsequently entered a final order, adopting the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions except as to the technical breach. The university determined that the contract had not been breached.

The evidence before the hearing officer established that as a matter of university policy and practice deans serve at the pleasure of the president of the university and subject to his assignment of duties. Section 240.227(5), Florida Statutes (1984), and Rule 6C-4.01(2), F.A.C. (1984), authorized university presidents to appoint, remove, and reassign academic deans. The parties’ contract did not guarantee Tuck-man any specific duties or responsibilities as dean. He retained his assigned rank throughout the full contract term, and continued to serve as a faculty member at his full salary under the contract. In these circumstances the university was entitled to conclude as a matter of law, in accordance with section 120.57(l)(b)(10), Florida Statutes, that the reassignment of Tuck-man’s duties did not constitute a breach of the contract of employment.

The order appealed is affirmed.

SMITH, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN STURGEON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HERBERT FROST, in his official 

capacity as Alaska Regional Director 

of the National Park Service; GREG 

DUDGEON; ANDEE SEARS; DAVID 

BERNHARDT, Secretary of the 

Interior; DAVID VELA, in his official 

capacity as Acting Director of the 

National Park Service; THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; THE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-36165

D.C. No.

3:11-cv-00183-

HRH

ORDER

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed November 1, 2019

Before: Jerome Farris, Dorothy W. Nelson,

and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.
2 STURGEON V. FROST

ORDER

Appellant John Sturgeon’s request for action is 

GRANTED. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Sturgeon v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066 (2019), the opinion of this 

Court dated October 2, 2017, 872 F.3d 927, is VACATED

and judgment is entered REVERSING the district court’s 

judgment. We remand this case to the district court with 

directions to enter judgment in favor of Sturgeon consistent 

with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Thomas P. Russo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of MetaMorphix, Inc., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”);

     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 thecircumstances 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 ofoperations 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) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 
     b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and  procedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this Report based on such evaluation; and 
     c)  disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 
     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 andthe audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
     b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees  who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial  reporting. 
 
 By:/S/ THOMAS P. RUSSO  Thomas P. Russo   *Executive Vice President, Treasurer and    Chief Financial Officer of MetaMorphix, Inc.*
 

Date: February 29, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    ALLION HEALTHCARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 of Allion Healthcare, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
P. Moran, Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Acting
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do certify, pursuant to SECTION 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


     Dated:  April 14, 2004



                               By: /S/ MICHAEL P. MORAN
                               ------------------------
                                       Michael P. Moran
                                       Chairman, President,
                                       Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and
                                       Acting Chief Financial Officer





<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Richard J. Naughton, Chief Executive Officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.          Date: May 11, 2006 /s/ Richard J. Naughton         Name: Richard J. Naughton    Title:   Chief Executive Officer
## First Electric Cooperative Corporation, Jacksonville, AR



# Distribution Pole Replacement Costs

20-Oct-11 

## General Information: J Joyce

1. Standard distribution transformer Pole is 40 foot Class 3 Southern Yellow Pine 2. Replacement pole is a 40 foot Class 3 Southern Yellow Pine 3. Replacement is performed while circuit is energized. 4. Digger Derrick Truck is normally required for installation, removal and replacement of distribution poles. 5. Most distribution lines are three-phase lines and replacement is estimated for that type of circuit. 6. No salvage value is given to the pole being retired since it will not be re-used. 7. The only new equipment being installed along with the replacement pole is the grounding of the new pole. 8. Hardware and other equipment on the original pole, other than in 7 above, is re-used. 9. Labor, transportation, and overheads are estimated to complete the retirement of the original pole and replace it with a new pole in the energized circuit as described above including the cost of the new pole. 

## Estimated cost of this pole replacement process is $1,703.861. Standard distribution transformer Pole is 40 foot Class 3 Southern Yellow Pine

4. Digger Derrick Truck is normally required for installation, removal and replacement of distribution poles. 5. Most distribution lines are three-phase lines and replacement is estimated for that type of circuit.

7. The only new equipment being installed along with the replacement pole is the grounding of the new pole. 8. Hardware and other equipment on the original pole, other than in 7 above, is re-used. 9. Labor, transportation, and overheads are estimated to complete the retirement of the original pole and replace it with a new pole in the energized circuit as described above including the cost of the new pole. 

## Estimated cost of this pole replacement process is $1,703.86
Table 1 from Sierra Club and Earth Justice Comments

**Annual Unit Generation Number of Units**  **Total Generation (MMWh/yr) Number in Study**  **0.1 -**  **1 million MWh** 361 174 6 **1 -**  **2 million MWh** 125 179 6 **2 -**  **3 million MWh** 102 253 9 **3 -** **4 million MWh** 114 395 14 **4 -**  **5 million MWh**  50 221 8 **5 -** **9million MWh** 42 253 9
#### Helga LAKS, Appellant, v. Roger LONGO, Appellee.

No. 87-2253.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1988.

Carl L. Laks, Miami, for appellant.

Spence, Payne, Masington, Grossman & Needle and R.W. Payne, Jr. and Paul J. Levine and Claire B. Ford, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Piver v. Hoberman,*220 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); *see Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp.,*413 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA), *rev. denied,*424 So.2d 763 (Fla.1982).
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Harry Brand, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

April 28, 1959.

*Edward J. Stark*for petitioners.

*Emanuel Reich*for respondent.

John D. Bennett, S.

By order to show cause, the petitioners in this discovery proceeding seek an order directing the respondent to turn over certain items of personal property described in the petition. It is the petitioners’ contention that the proof so far adduced establishes their right to such items.

*757Items (a) and (b) consist of 200 shares of corporate stock. At the hearing the respondent, who has not filed a formal answer, testified to a gift of these shares of stock to her by the decedent. The respondent in an affidavit in opposition to this motion states he is prepared to offer additional proof to corroborate the alleged gift. A gift from the decedent being alleged as to this asset, issue has been joined, and the respondent is directed to file an answer within five days of the service of a copy of this order, after which the matter may he placed on the calendar for a hearing.

Item (c) is a promissory note marked paid. The attorney for the respondent stated that the lawyer has no claim with respect to this note. However the estate allegedly needs the note to prove payment of the debt. The note is directed to be delivered to petitioners.

Item (d) consists of a personal checkbook of the decedent. The respondent has admitted possession and is directed to turn this item over to the executors.

Upon the facts, the sum of $2,900 mentioned in item (e) is directed to be turned over by respondent to the petitioners.

Item (f) relates to two boxes containing an assortment of gold and silver objects. The executors have agreed that the objects remain in the respondent’s possession, provided they are given an appraisal of the contents of the two boxes. This arrangement is approved, and a proper order may be entered to that effect.

Settle order on five days’ notice providing for the service of an answer and continuation of the hearing.