alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) 

File Name: 15a0073p.06 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

_________________ 

NATHANIEL BRENT, personally and on behalf of his 

minor children SB and JB; SHERRIE BRENT, 

personally and on behalf of her minor children SB 

and JB; AARON BRENT; JAMIE BRENT; ROBERT 

BRENT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

RICK SNYDER, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 14-2367 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. 

No. 2:13-cv-13128—Julian A. Cook, Jr., District Judge. 

Decided and Filed: April 21, 2015 

Before: GIBBONS, SUTTON, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. 

_________________ 

ORDER

_________________ 

 PER CURIAM. This matter is before the court upon consideration of the response to this 

court’s order directing Nathaniel Brent to show cause why his adult children Aaron Brent, Jamie 

Brent, and Robert Brent should not be removed as appellants in this appeal. 

The district court dismissed the Brents’ lawsuit on September 21, 2014. Nathaniel filed a 

notice of appeal on October 17, 2014, well within Appellate Rule 4’s thirty-day limit. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The notice identifies “all plaintiffs” as appellants, but only Nathaniel’s 

signature appears on the page. 

>
No. 14-2367 Brent, et al. v. Snyder, et al. Page 2

The absence of other signatures does not pose a problem for Nathaniel’s wife Sherrie and 

his minor children. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2). But it does pose a problem for his adult 

children. Nathaniel does not appear to be licensed to practice law, and as a consequence may not 

represent them on appeal—or sign his name on their behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Because his 

adult children did not sign the notice themselves, they have failed to perfect their appeal. See 

Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 763 (2001). Fortunately for them, that is not the end of the 

matter. The signature requirement is mandatory but not jurisdictional. See id. at 765. That 

means they may correct their error “by signing the paper on file or by submitting a duplicate that 

contains the signature.” Id. at 764 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)). 

We therefore give Aaron Brent, Jamie Brent, and Robert Brent thirty days from this 

order’s entry to sign their already-filed notice of appeal or to submit a duplicate notice of appeal 

containing their signatures. Otherwise, we will dismiss them as appellants from this appeal. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 _________________________________ 

 Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CHARLES E. SMITH, JR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 39 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and

Application for Leave to File Amendment are DENIED.
I was not able to make the call today and I wanted to see if it was recorded and if it will be posted anywhere? 

This is a huge opportunity in our Veteran community to be able to rehabilitate in the fields growing hemp instead of using the pills from the VA. It's very effective against Post Traumatic Stress and it seems that no one is really talking about that aspect or discussing the opportunity to invest in the Veteran community. We aim to change that dialect! 

We are fighting at both the state level and federal level to ensure Veterans have a large seat at the table in the hemp program and more than that, access to funding which has kept us from entering the industry too.

Thank you for taking the time with this email and I hope you have a wonderful evening. 

Thank you

Very Respectfully,

Joshua Littrell
Exhibit
32.2
 
 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 Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Clay Hulette, the Treasurer 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/R. Clay HuletteR.
      Clay HuletteVice
      President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember
      16, 2009
*The Hon. Bruce M. Van Sickle, United States District Judge

for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

 The Hon. Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge

1

for the District of South Dakota.

_____________

No. 95-4149SD

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* On Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court

* for the District of

* South Dakota.

Michael Young, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 14, 1996

 Filed: May 29, 1996

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MAGILL, Circuit Judge, and VAN

SICKLE, District Judge. *

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Michael Young was convicted in the District Court of assaulting,

1

resisting, or impeding a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111.

He was sentenced to four years' probation, and a fine of $500.00 and a

special assessment of $50.00 were imposed. Young appeals, arguing that the

government did not prove that the other person involved in the altercation

shown by the evidence at trial was a federal officer. We affirm.
-2-

The person claimed by the United States, and found by the District

Court, to be a federal officer within the meaning of § 111 was a man named

John Miller. Mr. Miller was not an employee of the United States. He was

a Rosebud Sioux Tribe police officer. The Department of the Interior,

however, had a contract with the tribe for the performance of lawenforcement functions. Such contracts are authorized by 25 U.S.C. § 450h,

known as Public Law 93-638. In addition, 25 U.S.C. § 2804(a) provides that

the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Interior Department may enter into an

agreement for the use of tribal personnel to enforce federal or tribal law.

And, under 25 U.S.C. § 2804(f), such persons, though not otherwise federal

employees, are employees of the Department of the Interior for purposes of

§ 111 of Title 18 when acting under authority granted by the Secretary

under 25 U.S.C. § 2804(a). See United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345

(8th Cir. 1993).

It is doubtless true, as Young argues, that not every person employed

to carry out a "Public Law 638 contract" fits this definition. But the

particular contract relevant to this case was in evidence as an exhibit at

trial, and it does authorize the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, through employees

hired for the purpose, to perform law-enforcement functions that would

otherwise be performed by BIA officers. It is undisputed that officer

Miller was such a person. He was acting pursuant to authority given to the

tribe by its contract with the Department of the Interior. He is thus a

federal officer within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 111 by the express words

of 25 U.S.C. § 2804(f).

Young also argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish an

assault, and that certain exculpatory information was improperly withheld

by the government before trial. We have considered these arguments and

hold that they are without merit. They are not substantial enough to

deserve discussion.

Affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                         2157428
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3198211
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    3450805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9904622
<PP&E>                                        26194241
<DEPRECIATION>                                13550436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                22554420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1737646
<BONDS>                                        6000000
<COMMON>                                       1809171
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    11004303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  22554420
<SALES>                                       40648920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              40648920
<CGS>                                         36887077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 36887077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              495009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 869355
<INCOME-TAX>                                    283954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             585401
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    585401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          23,000                 121,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,000                 445,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               735,000               1,398,000
<PP&E>                                      38,251,000              32,354,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,000                  17,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,303,000              34,324,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,676,000               1,685,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,200,000               4,850,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,851,000              27,579,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,303,000              34,324,000
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               924,000                 662,000
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (2,423,000)             (3,031,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (3,141,000)             (1,456,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (523,000)               (205,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,163,000)             (4,030,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,163,000)             (4,030,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0               (236,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,163,000)             (4,266,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.63)                  (5.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.63)                  (5.14)




</TABLE>
// Custom scripts file

(function ($, Drupal) {

    'use strict';
  
    Drupal.behaviors.usda = {
      attach: function (context, settings) {
        // Close active nav menu on background click.
        var $menu = $('nav.usa-nav');
        if($menu.length > 0) {
          $('html').click(function(e) {
            if(e.target && !($('body').hasClass('usa-mobile_nav-active')) && !($.contains($menu[0], e.target))) {
              $('button[aria-expanded="true"]', $menu).trigger('click');
            }
          });
        }
      }
    };

    // Generic function that runs on window resize.
    function resizeStuff() {
  
    }
  
    // Runs function once on window resize.
    var TO = false;
    $(window).resize(function () {
      if (TO !== false) {
        clearTimeout(TO);
      }
  
      // 200 is time in miliseconds.
      TO = setTimeout(resizeStuff, 200);
    }).resize();
  
    Drupal.behaviors.stateSelector = {
      attach: function (context, settings) {
        // $('select#state-select', context).once('stateselect').change(function() {
        //   const value = this.value;
        //   if (value !== "-1") {
        //     // Term ID is valid, navigate user to contacts page
        //     // with state facet preselected with term.
        //     window.location.href = '/contacts/?f[0]=state:' + value;
        //   }
        // });
      }
    };
  
  })(jQuery, Drupal);
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6045

JOVAN M. BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RON LAWRENZ; ERIC RAMOS; LISA YOUNG,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-01705-HMH)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jovan M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Quintin Atkinson, Mark Victor Gende, 

SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6045 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jovan M. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s September 7, 2023, order 

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, and dismissing Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In civil cases, 

parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an 

appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The 

district court may reopen the time to file an appeal if: (1) the court finds that the movant 

did not receive proper notice of the entry of the judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) 

the motion to reopen the appeal period is filed within 180 days after the order is entered or 

within 14 days after the movant receives proper notice of the entry, whichever is earlier; 

and (3) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); see Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 77(d). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Brown asserts that he did not receive timely notice of the entry of the district court’s 

judgment. We construe his December 11, 2023, letter as a motion to reopen the appeal 

period under Rule 4(a)(6).∗

 Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited 

purpose of determining whether to reopen the appeal period. 

REMANDED

∗ Because Brown filed the notice of appeal more than 30 days after the appeal period 

expired, the motion cannot be construed as a Rule 4(a)(5) motion for extension of time to 

file a notice of appeal.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6045 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Order entered April 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00346-CV

ESTATE OF JERRY WAYNE PARKS, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-13-236-3

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 16, 2015 notice of request for supplementation of the 

reporter’s record as follows: We ORDER Mona Lisa Richard, Official Court Reporter for the 

Probate Court No. 3 of Dallas County, to file, by MAY 8, 2015, the reporter’s record from the 

October 3, 2014 hearing. Appellant’s brief will be due THIRTY DAYS after the requested

reporter’s record is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to Mona Lisa Richard and all counsel of record.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 23.10**

 

|        |                                                |                       |                      |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------|
|   |  TBPE REGISTERED ENGINEERING  FIRM F-1580 | FAX  (713) 651-0849        |
|   |  1100 LOUISIANA  SUITE 3800          | HOUSTON,  TEXAS 77002-5218 | TELEPHONE  (713) 651-9191 |

 

February 22, 2010

 

Wehereby consent to references to Ryder Scott Company L.P. contained in thesection entitled “Basis of Reserves Estimates” within “Reserves, Production andRelated Information” as set out in Part I, Items 1&2 Business andProperties of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2009, of Nexen Inc. (the Form 10-K) and to the use of our Report of ThirdParty letter report dated January 29, 2010, concerning****ourevaluation of certain oil and gas properties of Nexen Inc. located in theUnited States Gulf of Mexico, which are included as exhibits in the Form 10-K.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ryder Scott Company L.P.           |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
|   | **RYDER SCOTT COMPANY L.P.**           |
|   | TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580 |

 

 

| 1200, 530 8TH  AVENUE, S.W.  |   | CALGARY,  ALBERTA T2P 3S8    |   | TEL (403)  262-2799 |   | FAX (403)  262-2790 |
|------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|---------------------|
| 621 17TH  STREET, SUITE 1550 |   | DENVER,  COLORADO 80293-1501 |   | TEL (303)  623-9147 |   | FAX (303)  623-4258 |

 

----
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE XX

ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENT

Article 191

(ex Article 174 TEC)

(ex Article 174 TEC)

1.   Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:

| — | preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, |
| --- | --- |

—

preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,

| — | protecting human health, |
| --- | --- |

—

protecting human health,

| — | prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, |
| --- | --- |

—

prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,

| — | promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change. |
| --- | --- |

—

promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.

2.   Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

In this context, harmonisation measures answering environmental protection requirements shall include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause allowing Member States to take provisional measures, for non-economic environmental reasons, subject to a procedure of inspection by the Union.

3.   In preparing its policy on the environment, the Union shall take account of:

| — | available scientific and technical data, |
| --- | --- |

—

available scientific and technical data,

| — | environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union,

| — | the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action, |
| --- | --- |

—

the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action,

| — | the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. |
| --- | --- |

—

the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions.

4.   Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations. The arrangements for Union cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the Union and the third parties concerned.

The previous subparagraph shall be without prejudice to Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Sun Network Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, T. Joseph Coleman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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 my 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.




November 22, 2004                    By: /S/ T. JOSEPH COLEMAN
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         T. Joseph Coleman
                                         Chief Executive Officer, President and
                                         Director
# Delaware_county_differentials_2