alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State of Florida *ex rel.*Joseph J. Kittel, Relator, v. W. S. Jennings, Governor &c., *et al.,*Trustees of the I. I. Fund of Florida, Defendants.

*Henry H. Ingersoll*and *T. L. Clarice,*for Relator.

*Geo. P. Raney*and *J. B. Whitfield,*Attorney-General, for the Defendants.

This is an original proceeding of mandamus. A demurrer was filed to the alternative writ and was overruled April 28, 1903, on which date an opinion was filed by Mr. Justice Hocker. Subsequently the defendants filed an amended answer, to which relator demurred. The demurrer to the amended answer was overruled January 19, 1904, on which date an opinion was filed by Mr. Justice Hocker. The relator failed to plead further and the cause is dismissed on motion of the Attorney-General.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA1 4

- 294 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Beaufort County No. 11 CRS 52674 ROBERT CHRISTOPHER FIGGS

On writ of certiorari to review judgments entered 26 February 201 3 by Judge Wayland J. Sermons, Jr. , in Beaufort County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 June 2014
. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Sherri Horner Lawrence , for the State. Craig M. Cooley for defendant

- appellant
. BRYANT , Judge.

Where a review of the record pursuant to Anders reveals no prejudicial error in defendant’s appeal, we find no error in the judgment of the trial court
. Defendant Robert Christopher Figgs seeks review of judgment s entered 26 February 2013 upon guilty verdict s to- 2

-

statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a child
. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive term s of 317 to 390 and 21 to 26 months impri sonment for his respective convictions
. On 12 December 2013, this Court issued a writ of certiorari to review defendant ’ s judgments.

________________________________ Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with suff icient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the require ments of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Kinch , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documen ts necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find- 3

-

any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
No error. Judges STROUD and HUNTER, Robert N., Jr., concur . Report per Rule 30(e).
The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx

Secretary of Transportation

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, DC 20590

The Honorable John F. Kerry

Secretary of State

US Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretaries Kerry and Foxx -

The over 200 members of the Mid-Michigan Business Travel Coalition is a unified voice for the business 

community throughout the capital region that includes some of the state’s largest companies as well as 

many small businesses. We are interested in seeing the strongest possible air service in Lansing and 

across the state. 

That is why recent reports about government-owned Gulf carriers, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and 

Emirates Airline, violating the Open Skies policy by receiving over $40 billion in government subsidies is 

disturbing. That is a clear violation of the spirit of Open Skies policy and is detrimental to Michigan 

businesses that use the Capital Region International Airport. 

This airport is a $1 billion regional asset and an economic engine for our region for the jobs it has 

created, the people it has employed, and passengers who use the airport as a critical hub for their 

travel. 

Open Skies promotes strong air service which creates jobs and has been essential in helping us attract, 

retain and grow businesses in the area. Further, it has been an important factor for expanding airline 

access at Capital Region International Airport for business and personal travel. 

It is imperative that the U.S. open consultations with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates regarding the 

subsidies and other benefits these state-owned airlines are receiving. As you well know, the strength of 

America’s economy and the U.S. airlines industry depends on a fair and competitive playing field. More 

so, businesses in the mid-Michigan region cannot survive another economic downturn. Simply, the 

current situation puts us at an economic disadvantage and the Mid-Michigan Business Travel Coalition 

urges you to put Open Skies on the front burner for the sake of saving Michigan jobs. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Robinson

Board Chair of the Mid-Michigan Business Travel Coalition
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: William K. Green v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00960

- CR

Trial court case number: 717215

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, William K. Green’s, brief was originally due on January 2, 2015. No response was received to our notice that the brief was overdue. Accordingly, on February 26, 2015, this Court issued an order, abating the appeal and directing the trial cour t to hold a hearing to determine whether Green wished to pursue his appeal, and if so, whether he had made arrangements for a brief to be filed. The hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record were

filed in March and indicated that the trial court had given Green 30 days to hire counsel . No attorney made an appearance on behalf of Green . Thus, on April 28

, 2015, this Court issued an order stating that we would consider Green to be pro se , and ordering him to file his brief by May 28, 2015. No brief w as filed.

On September 22, 2015, this Court issued an other abatement order, directing the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether Green wished to pursue his appeal, and if so, whether he had made arrangements to file a brief. During the hearing , Green advised the trial judge he had hired an attorney, Patrick Michael Megaro. Accordingly, this Court issued an order, directing Mr. Megaro to file a brief. On December 4, 2015, Mr. Megaro advised this Court he had not been retained by Green.

Because no attorney has made an appearance on behalf of Green , we consider him to be pro se. Green was admonished by the trial court of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se on this appeal.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty (30) days of the d ate of this order, with no further extensions. If no brief is filed by that date, the Court may set the case at issue and decide the appeal without briefs

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(4).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 8, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 30, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 30, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0038. PAMELA MIDDLEBROOKS v. KENNETH B. WHITE et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

ST17CV0295
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KATHLEEN M. BURKE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35764

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05548-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2018 ** 

Before: THOMAS, Chief Circuit Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit

Judges

Kathleen Burke appeals the district court’s denial of her application for fees

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act following our remand of her previous

FILED

MAR 07 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Social Security disability benefits appeal. We review the district court’s order for

an abuse of discretion. Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659, 663 (9th Cir. 2017). We

affirm.

The district court did not improperly reconsider the merits of Burke’s

disability claim. It properly focused on the nature and scope of our remand to

determine whether both the government’s litigation position and ALJ’s position

had a reasonable basis in fact and law. Id. at 664; Gardner v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d

652, 656 (9th Cir. 2017); Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1996). It

reasonably concluded that it did. 

Nor did the district court ignore an independent reason for remand. Our

holding that the ALJ failed to develop the record to support three of the adverse

credibility findings was intertwined with and dependent upon our holding that the

adverse credibility findings were unsupported by the record. We specifically

rejected Burke’s argument that the ALJ otherwise failed to develop the record. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that both the ALJ’s

decision and the government’s litigation position had a reasonable basis in fact and

law. Burke never disputed that she made inconsistent statements about her medical

condition and why she stopped working. As a matter of law, inconsistent

statements may support adverse credibility determinations. Tommasetti v. Astrue,

2
533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). Finally, the district court could consider

disagreement among the federal judges in deciding substantial justification. Meier

v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 2013); Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081,

1084 (9th Cir. 2002). 

AFFIRMED. 

3
Exhibit 32.0



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SI Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the Company as of and for the period covered
by this Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Rheo A. BrouillardRheo A. Brouillard President and Chief Executive Officer November 12, 2004




By:

/s/ Brian J. HullBrian J. Hull Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer November 12, 2004
#### Reyna Encarnacion TELLECHEA, Appellant, v. The COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI, INC., Appellee.

No. 88-557.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1988.

*1084Roy D. Wasson, Miami, for appellant.

Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Eckhart, Mason *'&*Spring and Pamela Beckham, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., BASKIN, J., and JOSEPH P. McNULTY, Associate Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The defendant Coca Cola’s truck driver, who was .'stopped at an intersection, signaled to a car in which the plaintiff was a passenger to make a left turn in front of him. The car did so and was thereupon struck by another auto traveling in the lane to the right of the Coca Cola truck. While the facts closely resemble those in *Kerfoot v. Waychoff,*501 So.2d 588 (Fla.1987), in which a directed verdict for the signaling driver was affirmed, we nevertheless reverse the summary judgment entered below for Coca Cola on that authority.

In our view, the defendant has failed affirmatively to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues (a) as to the apparent meaning and appropriate interpretation of the signal and (b) whether the Coca Cola driver, seated high above the road in a truck presumably equipped with the right-hand rear mirror required by law, see § 316.302, Fla.Stat. (1987); 49 C.F.R. § 393.80 (1988),1 was in a “position to determine if the adjacent lane was clear of motor vehicles.” See *Kerfoot,*501 So.2d at 589. The *Kerfoot*decision, which acknowledges that signaling driver cases may well involve questions of fact rather than law, recognizes that both of these factors are pertinent in making the ultimate determination of whether the signaler was actionably negligent. See *Massingale v. Sibley,*449 So.2d 98 (La.App.1984) (cited by *Kerfoot,*501 So.2d at 590).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1

. § 393.80 Rear-vision mirrors.

> Every bus, truck, and truck tractor shall be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear, along both sides of the vehicle.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined 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 October 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30012 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaint iff- Appellee,
versus FLOYD NELLUMS, JR., also known as David Winters, also known as Joseph Lewis, also known as Latti an Mouton, also known as Kevin McGahey, DefendantAppellant.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-CR-20036-ALL

---------------------------------------------------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Assistant Federal Public Defender appoint ed to represent Flo yd Nellums, Jr., has filed
a mo tion to wit hdraw and brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Nellums filed a response arguing th at his guilt y plea was not knowing and voluntary as to the amo unt of lo ss-2-

used to enhance his sentence and th at the district court clearly erred in enhancing his sentenced based on that loss amount. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Nellums’s response discloses no nonfrivolous i ssue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further respo nsibilit ies herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
PCA: 12-3J14-24-B-0159-0001

PURCHASE

AWARD DESCRIPTION

DATE: January 26, 2024 BUY: Fresh Pears

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) purchased fresh pears as indicated below for distribution to the 

child nutrition and other related domestic food assistance programs for fiscal year 2024. 

The purchase is the result of offers received in response to Solicitation No. 2000009799 dated January 

4, 2024. All contracts are effective as of January 26, 2024. Deliveries will take place between February 

19, 2024 to April 10, 2024. 

PURCHASE SUMMARY

WESCOTT AGRI PRODUCTS, INC

2000009799 State Pricing ($) :

Not Awarded: 45,080 cases of Bartlett pears were not awarded due to no bids recieved.
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section1350, the
undersigned, Liang Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of Synutra International, Inc.
(the “Company”), hereby certifies, to his
knowledge, that the
Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter endedSeptember30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:November9, 2009
              /s/ Liang
    ZhangName: Liang
      ZhangTitle: Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of thiswritten statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished with the
Company’s Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after
the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 31

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 8, 2001

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the importance of organ, tissue, bone marrow, and blood donation

and supporting National Donor Day.

Whereas more than 70,000 individuals await organ transplants at any given moment;

Whereas another man, woman, or child is added to the national organ transplant waiting list every 20 minutes;

Whereas despite the progress in the last 15 years, more than

15 people per day die because of a shortage of donor organs;
2

HCON 31 RFS

Whereas almost everyone is a potential organ, tissue, and

blood donor;

Whereas transplantation has become an element of mainstream medicine that prolongs and enhances life;

Whereas for the fourth consecutive year, a coalition of health

organizations is joining forces for National Donor Day;

Whereas the first three National Donor Days raised a total

of nearly 25,000 units of blood, added over 4,000 potential donors to the National Marrow Donor Program Registry, and distributed tens of thousands of organ and tissue pledge cards;

Whereas National Donor Day is America’s largest one-day

organ, tissue, bone marrow, and blood donation event;

and

Whereas a number of businesses, foundations, health organizations, and the Department of Health and Human Services have designated February 10, 2001, as National

Donor Day: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) supports the goals and ideas of National

4 Donor Day;

5 (2) encourages all Americans to learn about the

6 importance of organ, tissue, bone marrow, and blood

7 donation and to discuss such donation with their

8 families and friends; and

9 (3) requests that the President issue a procla10 mation calling on the people of the United States to
3

HCON 31 RFS

1 conduct appropriate ceremonies, activities, and pro2 grams to demonstrate support for organ, tissue,

3 bone marrow, and blood donation.

Passed the House of Representatives March 7,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### The Butterick Publishing Company, Appellant, *v.*Mistrot-Munn Company, Inc., Respondent.

*Butterick Publishing Co.*v. *Mistrot-Munn Co., Inc.,*167 App. Div. 632, affirmed.

(Argued February 23, 1916;

decided March 14, 1916.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May *1,*1915, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to a separate defense set up in the answer and overruled said demurrer in an action to recover for defendant’s refusal to perform a contract for the sale of patented patterns and copyrighted publications at a fixed price. Defendant in its amended answer sets up as a separate and complete defense to said cause of action the so-called Texas AntiTrust Act, approved March.31, 1903, alleging that the contracts between the parties were by said statute absolutely void and unenforceable at the time of their execu ■ tion and of defendant’s refusal to perform.

The following question was certified: “Is the first separate and complete defense set up in the amended answer to the amended complaint sufficient in law upon the face thereof ? ”

*Herbert Noble, Orlando P. Metcalf*and *James B. Sheehan*for appellant.

*George H. Savage, Joseph P. Cotton*and *George S. Franklin*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Scott, J., below, and question certified answered in the affirmative.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
Exhibit 32
 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 FOF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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.
 May 11, 2009
    /s/  Michael H. LeeMichael H. LeePresident and Chief Executive Officer May 11, 2009
    /s/  Francis M. ColalucciFrancis M. ColalucciSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer