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

No. 15

- 10522 Summary Calendar

T. H. HILL,
Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; DALLAS COUNTY; CITY OF DALLAS; BRENDA H. THOMPSON; CARL E. ROBERTS, L.L.C.; CARL R. KING; DALLAS COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE,
Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15 -CV- 1311

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
T. H. Hill moves for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to pursue the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By doing so, he is

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED February 10, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10522 Document: 00513871792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2017No. 15

- 10522

2 challenging th e district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the notice of appeal was filed after the magistrate judge had issued his report and recommendation (“R&R”) but before the district court had ruled, Hill sought to appeal the R&R. A premature notice of appeal is valid only whe re the order appealed from announces a decision that would be appealable if it were immediately followed by the entry of judgment. Fi rsTier Mortg

. Co. v. Investors Mortg age Ins. Co. , 498 U.S. 269, 276

– 77 (1991); see also United States v. Cooper , 135 F.3d 960, 963 (5th Cir. 1998). Even if it were immediately followed by the entry of judg

ment, the R&R was not appeala ble , s ee Cooper , 135 F.3d at 962

– 63 , so the notice of appeal i s insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court , s ee id. Because Hill sought to appeal a non

- appealable order, his appeal has no arguable basis in law or fact and therefore is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983)

. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED , and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24 ; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10522 Document: 00513871792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2017
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135689 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BONNIE PATTERSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135689 

 COA: 278823 

WCAC: 06-000093 

DELPHI CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appeals shall consider 

whether the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) majority 

committed legal error by applying the wrong standard of proof, and if so, whether this 

error was nonetheless harmless. MCL 418.851 provides that “[a] claimant shall prove his 

or her entitlement to compensation and benefits under this act by a preponderance of the 

evidence.” The Court of Appeals shall determine whether the WCAC evaluated the 

evidence from the perspective that, once a magistrate has determined that a claimant is 

suffering from a work-related disability for any period, the claimant remains entitled to 

worker’s compensation benefits absent direct proof of recovery from that disability; if so, 

this would not describe the correct standard of proof. Simply because a claimant meets 

the burden of proof for one period does not mean that he or she necessarily meets that 

burden for all periods until proven otherwise. Rather, the claimant has the burden at all 

times of proving his or her entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. 

t0416 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 23, 2008 

 Clerk
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

TRUSTBIZ, LLC, AS TRUSTEE ONLY, ) 

UNDER THE HC 15-9 LAND TRUST, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-1882 

 ) 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed May 20, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco 

County; Wayne L. Cobb, Judge. 

Heather A. DeGrave of Walters Levine 

Klingensmith & Thomison, P.A., Tampa, 

for Appellant. 

Elliott B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel of 

Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, for 

Appellee. 

MORRIS, Judge. 

 We affirm the trial court's order denying the motion to join or substitute as 

a real party in interest filed by Trustbiz, LLC. See Bonafide Props. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D158 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 13, 2016); Whitburn, LLC v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2797 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 18, 2015). We dismiss 
-2- 

the portion of the appeal seeking review of the final judgment of foreclosure entered in 

favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. See Mkt. Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 

3d 31, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). 

 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. 

CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
#### Hulin TULLIER, Appellant, v. GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 20629.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1963.

Arthur Cobb, Baton Rouge, La., for appellant.

F. W. Middleton, Jr., David W. Robinson, and John I. Moore, of Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, La,, for appellee.

Before RIVES and CAMERON, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District J udge,

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully read the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court in this case. These findings of fact and conclusions of law appear in the Federal Supplement at D.C., 212 F. Supp. 613. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the conclusions reached by the trial court, and we affirm the judgment of that Court on the basis of the opinion of that Court.

Affirmed.
64%

17%

4%

1%

6%

4% 4%

56%

19%

9%

8%

6% 2%

 Organic Enforcement Quarterly Update

 National Organic Program (NOP) Activities | Fiscal Year 2021, Fourth Quarter

Investigations & Inquiries by Fiscal Year

Cooperation Breeds Success at U.S. Ports

One of the biggest factors when identifying risk in organic imports is timely 

access to good data. Through its partnership with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), NOP now has a seat in CBP’s Commercial Targeting and 

Analysis Center (CTAC), which makes it possible to monitor data behind 

millions of pounds of imports entering the United States. The multi-agency 

CTAC teams have developed risk-based approaches to combat fraud at U.S. 

ports of entry, leveraging NOP staff to test suspect grain shipments, and

recently flagging a shipment of olive oil from Turkey for inspection. An 

investigation by the CTAC team determined the product to be non-compliant 

with USDA requirements for organic imports. The shipment, worth about 

$40,000, was stopped before it entered the U.S. organic market. 

Raising the profile of enforcement cooperation and the visible presence CTAC participation provides at ports of entry serves as an 

increasing deterrent to others who might be contemplating violations of U.S. import laws. NOP looks forward to the future of this 

and other partnerships with law enforcement agencies that help ensure a fair and competitive market for organic goods. 

Learn more about the USDA National Organic Program at www.ams.usda.gov/Organic. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Cases in Progress are based on allegations, complaints, and surveillance, and are not in themselves proof of wrongdoing. Administrative Actions are 

warnings/notices to businesses, often uncertified, and are critical in establishing that violators are aware of the rules, to support future enforcement action.

462 Cases in Progress

As of 9/30/2021

342 Closed Cases by Outcome

12 Months ending 9/30/2021

Voluntary

Compliance

No Violation

Fraudulent Certificates

Settlement, Civil Penalty, Appeal

Referred for Investigation

Administrative Actions

Uncertified

Operations Making

Organic Claims

Labelling Error

Prohibited Substance 

Fraud

Prohibited Practice

Pesticide Residue

The NOP and CBP CTAC team were recognized for their

joining forces to prevent organic fraud at U.S. ports of entry.

Referred for Criminal Investigation

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Completed Investigations 127 279 260 285 390 360 470 335 413 448 342

Resolved Inquiries 30 197 248 386 439

New Investigations 183 278 215 411 548 508 395 370 374 391 390

Total Incoming 183 278 215 411 548 508 425 567 622 777 829

Percentage completed 69% 100% 121% 69% 71% 71% 118% 94% 106% 107% 94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

* Fiscal year 

2021 numbers 

as of 9/30/2021

*
CONSENT OF EXPERT AND COUNSEL


Carolina Power & Light Company:

     The statements of law and legal conclusions under Item 1.
Business and Item 3. Legal Proceedings in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996
have been reviewed by me and are set forth therein
in reliance upon my opinion as an expert.

     I hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such
statements of law and legal conclusions in Registration
Statement No. 33-33520 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
33-5134 on Form S-3, Post-Effective Amendment No.
1 to Registration Statement No. 33-38349 on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 33-50597 on Form S-3 and Registration
Statement No. 33-57835 on Form S-3 and the related Prospectuses,
which are a part of such Registration Statements.



                               /s/ William D. Johnson,
                               Vice President and Senior Counsel

March 26, 1997
Exhibit 99.6




CEO AND CFO SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION











February 9, 2011














Securities and Exchange Commission


450 Fifth Street, N.W


Washington, D.C. 20549














Ladies and Gentlemen:





The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.




Claude Mongeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Luc Jobin, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, of Canadian National Railway Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and




2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Canadian National Railway Company.











/s/ Claude Mongeau

/s/ Luc JobinClaude Mongeau

Luc JobinPresident and Chief Executive Officer

Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
#### CRESCENT CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James CAMERON, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Albert Kraus, Inc., Appellee.

No. 20020.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1963.

Albert W. Copeland, J. H. Berman, Montgomery, Ala., for appellant, God-bold, Hobbs & Copeland, Montgomery, Ala., of counsel.

George B. Azar, Montgomery, Ala., for appellee, Azar & Campbell, Montgomery, Ala., of counsel.

Before RIVES, CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The' sole question presented is whether the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Mercantile Paper Company extended credit to Albert Kraus, Inc., rather than to Albert Kraus individually. A reading of the record convinces us that the district court was not clearly erroneous, indeed, that it was not erroneous at all. The judgment is

Affirmed.
----

**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:                April 1, 2008 | **/S/                DORRIT J. BERN**                |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Dorrit                J. Bern                        |
|                                | Chairman                of the Board                 |
|                                | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                |                                                 |
| Dated:                April 1, 2008 | **/S/                ERIC M. SPECTER**               |
|                                | Eric                M. Specter                       |
|                                | Executive                Vice President              |
|                                | Chief                Financial Officer               |

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Al Musairie Trading & Contracting Co. 

Under Contract No. N33191-13-D-0855 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59030 

Cynthia Malyszek, Esq. 

Malyszek & Malyszek 

Chino Hills, CA 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Genifer M. Tarkowski, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 22 April 2015 

MICHAEL T. PAUL 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59030, Appeal ofMusairie Trading 

& Contracting Co., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
September 18, 2014

By Email

Mr. Robert Finamore

Division Chief

Foreign Air Carrier Licensing

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Aeroenlaces Nacionales, S.A. de C.V. (d/b/a vivaAerobus) for 

an Exemption and Amendment to Permit for GDL/DFW, CUN/DFW, 

MTY/DFW, SJD/DFW (DOT-OST-2014-0160)

Dear Mr. Finamore, 

vivaAerobus has completed its poll of the U.S. carriers served with its application of 

September 11, 2014 for an exemption and amendment to foreign air carrier permit pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 for service between Guadalajara, Cancun, Monterrey and San Jose del 

Cabo, Mexico on the one hand and Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas on the other. 

vivaAerobus received non-objections from each of the carriers served. We request 

expedited approval of our application.

Respectfully submitted,

 

David M. Kirstein 

cc: Service List; David Christofano
# C_2016202EN.01009601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/96

---

Article 117

(ex Article 97 TEC)

(ex Article 97 TEC)

1.   Where there is a reason to fear that the adoption or amendment of a provision laid down by law, regulation or administrative action may cause distortion within the meaning of Article 116, a Member State desiring to proceed therewith shall consult the Commission. After consulting the Member States, the Commission shall recommend to the States concerned such measures as may be appropriate to avoid the distortion in question.

2.   If a State desiring to introduce or amend its own provisions does not comply with the recommendation addressed to it by the Commission, other Member States shall not be required, pursuant to Article 116, to amend their own provisions in order to eliminate such distortion. If the Member State which has ignored the recommendation of the Commission causes distortion detrimental only to itself, the provisions of Article 116 shall not apply.

---
hee1p,nand otherncannabis plants, if any,n,vhether growing or harvested,nandnallnland, building-;1 

and other struct'J!cs used for the cultivation;handling, producing, processing, or storage ofhemp 

and other cannabfa plants, if any,nand aH loe,ations listed in theprodueer license. 

(e) A separatensample mustnbentakennfromneachnnon-contiguuusnplot ofnangive::i 

variety.nA separate samplemustbe takenfor each variety. Samples shalt be secured in a paper 

bag (tonallownfornair-dryingnduring transport). 

(f)n Cuttingsnwillnbe collected tonmake one representative sample.nSamples must be 

obtained fr01nnfhenflowering topsnofnplants whennfloweri11gntopsnarcnpresentnandnmustnbe 

approximately five toneight inches 1ll length finm the «main stem"n(thatnincludes the leaves and 

flowers), "terminalbud"n(that oce1u-s at the endnofa stt,m), or "central oola'' (cut stem that could 

developninto a bud) ofthe flowering top ofthe plant. Dependingon the acreage. the tribal inspector 

shall take cuttings front the numb1,,'f ofplants suggested in Section 7 ofthe Sampling Guidelines for 

Hemp for 1he US.nDomestic HcrnpnProduction Progn:n� issued January 15, 2021� wilhin thenpl\11 

and place thencomplete sample in anpaper bag. Thenbag shall be sealed bynfolding overnthentop 

once nndnstapling the bag shut. The s.r.mplewill betransported to the Commission for drying and 

stomge. 

(g) The tribalninspector shall label the sample container with a sample JD,nThensample 

ID must include the last four numerical digits ofthe licease number, date(MMDDY'l), andna twodigit sequentialnsa□ple nurober assigned bynthe inspector. 

(h) The samplenshall be transported to the Commission fornstorage inna securen

area. The entire sample must then be sent to the testing lab for analysis. 

(i) Harvested lots ofhemp plants shall noi be commingledwith other harvested lots 

or other materialnwithout priornwrit�'fl permissionnfromnfoe Commission,nFloral materials 

harvestedn forn phytocannabinoidn extractionn shalln notn ben movedn beyond then on-farMn

processor, or commingled, or extracted, untiJnthe Comm..ission releasesnthenmaterial. 

(j) The licensee shall be notified within thirty (30) days of sampling ofthe statusnof 

the testing and eligibility ofnthe harvested materials to leave the Reservation and/or move jnto 

market Any producer may request additional testing at its costifit isnbelieved that the original 

total delta-9 THC concentration level test results were in errot'. 

3,4 Testing Procedures 

(a)n Testing shall be completed by a DEA-registered testing lab not affiliated with anyn

producer on the Reservation, Tes: results will be reported directly to the lJSDA and to the 

Commission, and then to the licensee by the Corumissfon. 

(b)n The testing must be able to accurately ide.rxifywhether the sample contnins a totaln

delta-9 THC contcet concentration level that exceeds the acct}ptable hemp THC leveL The 

procedure must include a validated testing metbodology �hat uses postdecarboxylation or other 

similarly reliable methods. The tcstlrtg methodology must conside:· the potential conversion of 

10
# C_2016203EN.01002501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/25

---

Article 54

The Agency shall have legal personality and financial autonomy.

The Council shall lay down the statutes of the Agency, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.

The statutes may be amended in accordance with the same procedure.

The statutes shall determine the Agency's capital and the terms upon which it is to be subscribed. The major part of the capital shall always belong to the Community and to the Member States. The contributions to the capital shall be determined by common accord of the Member States.

The rules for the commercial management of the activities of the Agency shall be laid down in the statutes. The latter may provide for a charge on transactions to defray the operating expenses of the Agency.

---
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL MANAGER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Linda J.  Haines,  Principal  Financial  Manager of Nutrition
Management  Services Company, a Pennsylvania  corporation (the "Company"),  does
hereby certify, to her knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 2007 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Linda J. Haines
---------------------------
Linda J. Haines
Principal Financial Manager

May 15, 2007
```
# C_2016202EN.01009801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/98

---

Article 122

(ex Article 100 TEC)

(ex Article 100 TEC)

1.   Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.

2.   Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

---