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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40632

JAMES BELL MCCOY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OWEN MURRAY; LANETTE LINTHICUM, Director, Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice Medical Services; PAM PACE, Practice Manager, Michael 

Unit,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-CV-228

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Bell McCoy, Texas prisoner # 1299701, moves for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Under § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed IFP in an appeal of a judgment in 

a civil action if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while 

* 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

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40632 Document: 00512999008 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-40632

incarcerated, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous or 

malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

§ 1915(g). 

McCoy does not dispute that he has three strikes but argues that the 

§ 1915(g) bar should not apply because he is under imminent danger of a 

serious physical injury. In support of this contention, he states that he is in 

pain and has difficulty sleeping because of delays in receiving medication, and 

that there is a likelihood of unnecessary delay in receiving future medication 

from prison officials. McCoy has failed to demonstrate that he was under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that he filed his 

complaint in the district court, proceeded with his appeal, or moved to proceed 

IFP. See id.; Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998); Arvie v. 

Tanner, 518 F. App’x 304, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2013).

McCoy’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 

202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). McCoy’s motion to expedite the ruling on his motion 

for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot.

2

 Case: 14-40632 Document: 00512999008 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 73 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding 

the permissible sources of funding for elections for public office and 

State ballot measures. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2019 

Mr. MCNERNEY (for himself and Ms. KAPTUR) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States regarding the permissible sources of funding for 

elections for public office and State ballot measures. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 73 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The only source of funding to directly 

3 or indirectly support or oppose a campaign for election 

4 to public office shall be either contributions by individual 

5 citizens to the principal campaign committee controlled by 

6 the candidate or funds provided under a system of public 

7 election financing or voter education established by Con8 gress, the State, or other jurisdiction as appropriate. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. The only source of funding that may 

10 be used to directly or indirectly support or oppose a ballot 

11 measure to amend a State constitution or other initiatives 

12 or referenda shall be either contributions made by individ13 uals who are eligible to vote on the measure or funds pro14 vided under a system of public election financing or voter 

15 education established by the State. 

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress, the States, and local jurisdic17 tions shall establish limits on the amount of contributions 

18 individuals may make with respect to a single campaign 

19 for election to Federal, State, or local office, respectively, 

20 including limits on the amount of contributions an indi21 vidual who is a candidate for such office may make with 

22 respect to the individual’s own campaign, and the States 

23 and local jurisdictions shall establish limits on the amount 

24 of contributions individuals may make with respect to a 

25 ballot measure. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HJ 73 IH 

1 ‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the 

2 power to carry out this article through appropriate legisla3 tion. 

4 ‘‘SECTION 5. Nothing in this article shall be con5 strued to grant Congress or the States the power to 

6 abridge the freedom of the press.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Neenah Paper, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of his or her knowledge:

 
| (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/ Sean  T. Erwin                                            |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Sean T.  Erwin                                                |
|   | Chairman  of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                                |
|   | Date: May 10,  2010                                      |
|   |                                                          |
|   | /s/ Bonnie  C. Lind                                           |
|   | Bonnie C.  Lind                                               |
|   | Senior Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|   | (Principal  Financial Officer)                                |
|   | Date: May 10,  2010                                      |

 

----
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Ansonia Commercial, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Gristede's Foods, Inc., Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, and Madison Capital Holdings LLC and/or XYZ Corporation, Respondent-Undertenant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenant, as limited by its briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered May 20, 2015, which denied its motion to dismiss the petition in a nonpayment summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered May 20, 2015, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>We sustain the denial of tenant's motion to dismiss the nonpayment petition, albeit for reasons different than those stated by Civil Court. We agree with tenant that the written rent demand was not served pursuant to the method of service set forth in RPAPL ยง 735 (<i>see</i> RPAPL ยง 711[2]), and that the service method set forth in the lease provision regarding the mailing of notices does not apply to a rent demand pursuant to RPAPL ยง 711 (<i>see Four Star Holding Co. v Alex Furs</i>, 153 Misc 2d 447, 448 [1992]). However, since tenant does not challenge the portion of the underlying order allowing landlord to amend the petition to assert an oral rent demand, dismissal is unwarranted. RPAPL ยง 711(2) permits a nonpayment proceeding to be maintained upon proof of an oral demand of the rent "or" a three days' notice in writing (<a href="../2015/2015_50196.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Tzifil Realty Corp. v Temammee</i>, 46 Misc 3d 144</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50196[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Given that the "petition properly alleged an oral demand for rent . . . service of a written demand was not required" (<a href="../2008/2008_51231.htm" target="_blank"><i>Corbo v West Side Travel</i>, 20 Misc 3d 126</a>[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51231[U] [App Term, 2d and 11th Jud Dists 2008]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concurI concurI concur	<br>Decision Date: June 17, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anneliese B. PARSONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79SA26.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

April 14, 1980.

Rehearing Denied May 12, 1980.

J. D. McFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., William Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., App. Section, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Public Defender, Denver, Barney Iuppa, Special Deputy State Public Defender, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellant.

ERICKSON, Justice.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of second-degree assault. Section 18-3-203(l)(c), C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). On appeal, under the facts of this case, we need only consider the failure of the trial court to give the appellant’s theory of the case instruction which asserted that the appellant resisted arrest. There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the appellant’s theory of the case instruction and the failure to give the instruction requires that the conviction be reversed and set aside. Since the appellant has already served her sentence in the Colorado Women’s Correction Reformatory, retrial is not necessary.

Anneliese Bess Parsons was with a number of other young people in Colorado Springs on July 10, 1976 at a beer party on Kiowa Street. A report had been made to the police that firecrackers or gun shots had been fired at the beer party. The police investigated the call, and when they arrived they saw an individual who was the appellant’s boyfriend throw a shotgun into the trunk of a car and lock the trunk. When the police attempted to question him, he joined the other young people at the beer party. After obtaining reinforcements, the police used reasonable force to make an arrest and were confronted by the appellant who attempted to assist her boyfriend. Blows were struck and the hostilities culminated when the police knocked the appel*94lant to the ground. The appellant was singled out from a large number of participants in the melee for a charge of felony second-degree assault, section 18-3-203(l)(c), C.R.S.1973. No other person was charged with a felony.

An instruction on the offense of resisting arrest (section 18-8-103(l)(a), C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8)) was properly tendered as the defendant’s theory of the case. *People v. Rivera,*186 Colo. 24, 525 P.2d 431 (1974). In refusing the instruction, the court declined to give the instruction only because it was not artfully worded and could not be corrected without delaying submission of the case to the jury. It was the duty of the trial court to either correct the tendered instruction or to give the substance of it in an instruction drafted by the court. *Nora v. People,*176 Colo. 454, 491 P.2d 62 (1971); *accord People v. Moya,*182 Colo. 290, 512 P.2d 1155 (1973).

Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction is reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 31.2

              Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
            Securities and Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Richard Cohen, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ABC Funding,
Inc.

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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) and 15d-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 the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
and

            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 covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      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 and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; 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.


Dated: October 30, 2006               By: /s/ Richard Cohen
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Richard Cohen, Chief Financial Officer
                                          ABC Funding, Inc.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MIGUEL LEON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10396

D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00452-JMS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 8, 2013

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

As appellant acknowledged in his briefs, and at oral argument, the

application of the good-faith exception to this case is controlled by United States v.

Pineda-Moreno, 688 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2012), which held that officers who

placed and monitored a GPS device on a suspect’s car reasonably relied on thenFILED

JAN 31 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
page 2

binding precedent. As a three-judge panel, we are bound by Pineda-Moreno. See

generally Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Thus,

although the government conceded below that the placement and use of a GPS

device on Leon’s vehicle was unconstitutional under United States v. Jones, 132 S.

Ct. 945 (2012), the district court did not err in ruling that the fruits of these

searches were nevertheless admissible under the good-faith exception to the

exclusionary rule. Pineda-Moreno, 688 F.3d at 1090–91.

AFFIRMED.
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  of  Kearny  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John N.
Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer 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; and

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






Date: February 7, 2008                     /s/ John N. Hopkins
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John N. Hopkins
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>

                            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  of  Kearny  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
C. Ledgerwood, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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; and

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






Date: February 7, 2008                            /s/ William C. Ledgerwood
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  William C. Ledgerwood
                                                  Senior Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit31.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,Russell C. Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cellu TissueHoldings, Inc., certify that:

1.               I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc.  for the period ended August 24, 2006;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness****of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and 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)           Disclosedin this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has material affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation 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 ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  October 10, 2006

|   | /s/ RUSSELL  C. TAYLOR        |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Russell C. Taylor             |
|   | President and Chief Executive |
|   | Officer                       |

 

2

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0430

IN THE MATTER OF:

V.K.B.,

A Youth.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 14, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2021

04/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0430
|   | (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 theCompany. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 16,      2010 | /s/ Qingtai Liu                     |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                   | Qingtai      Liu                    |
|                                   | Title:      Chief Executive Officer |
|                                   | (Principal      Executive Officer)  |

----