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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-11229

Summary Calendar

_____________________

FREDRICK RANSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRAVIS McPHERSON, ET AL.,

Defendants,

TRAVIS McPHERSON; DICKENS DETENTION CENTER,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(5:95-CV-182)

_________________________________________________________________

June 10, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fredrick Ranson, # 705952, appeals an adverse summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. He contends first

that he was denied due process by being placed in administrative

segregation without a hearing; and second, that the defendants were
- 2 -

deliberately indifferent and failed to protect him from assault by

another inmate.

“[A]dministrative segregation, without more, does not

constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty

interest.” Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996); see also Pichardo v.

Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996) (absent extraordinary

circumstances, continued confinement in administrative segregation

does not violate the Due Process Clause).

Ranson makes only conclusionary allegations and does not point

to any summary judgment evidence which creates a material fact

issue as to whether Warden McPherson was deliberately indifferent

to his need for protection from a substantial risk of harm. See

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

And, the detention center and McPherson in his official

capacity are not persons under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t

of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

Finally, we exercise our discretion not to consider Ranson’s

due process claim arising out of the assessment of his medical

bills from his trust-fund account because it is raised for the

first time on appeal. E.g., Douglass v. United Services Auto.

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); United States

v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).
- 3 -

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00807-CV

Brad and Randi AERY, and the House Intervenors Lloyd House, Robert Eugene House, 

Magdalen House, Judith Ann House, Wayne House, Jimmy R. House, Edna Pawelek Ulbrich, 

Peter Pawelek, Jesse Pawelek, Ruby Pawelek Schumacher, Elizabeth Pawalek Reigh, Roy Mitch,

Appellants

v.

Hoskins, Inc., et alAppellee/s

HOSKINS, INC., et al,

Appellees

From the 36th Judicial District Court, McMullen County, Texas

Trial Court No. M-12-0045-CV-A

Starr Boldrick Bauer, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee Aurora Resources Corporation’s Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Brief has this date been received and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of 

time to file the Appellee’s brief is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to May 20, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Melanie Hessler Phipps

Ellen Mitchell

Ezra Johnson

R. Clay Hoblit

Jason Allen Newman

Daniel Pozza

David William Navarro

Conner Jackson

C. David Kinder

Rosemarie Kanusky
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL R. FLANDERS                                 
|Paul R. Flanders                                     
|Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|March 9, 2009
;I



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNAIID 

### UnauthorizedAir Transp01 1 

### ation, Unfair andDeceptivePracc.ices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violatior-s of Public CharterR:'tles EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

### Unfair andDeceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and Violations of Public CliarterRules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT ...; i-

.....

· ... _·_ :

__ 

### ;'

DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Dacket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Horior's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office inAscend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: March 28, 2013
Respectfully submitted,

# ~~ · Samuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Vinh Q. Nguyen Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTranspmiation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FAX: 202-366-71523 Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that on this 28th day ofMarch, 2013, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: Original U.S. Depatiment ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Depatiment ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 By First Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S Leland Norton Way Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
EXHIBIT 23
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-88984 on Form S-4; Registration Statement Nos. 33-41480, 33-64984,333-07849, and 333-61689 on Form S-3; Registration Statement Nos. 2-87475,33-594, 33-28782, 33-60641, 33-60643, 33-42152, 333-06949, 333-13739 and333-66486 on Form S-8; and Registration Statement Nos. 333-325 and 811-7499 onForm N-2 of Dole Food Company, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2003,except for Note 18, as to which the date is March 17, 2003, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Dole Food Company, Inc. as of and for theyear ended December 28, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in the method ofaccounting for goodwill and an explanatory paragraph relating to theapplication of procedures relating to certain disclosures and reclassificationsof financial statement amounts related to the 2001 and 2000 consolidatedfinancial statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceasedoperations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form ofassurance other than with respect to such disclosures and reclassifications)appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dole Food Company, Inc. for theyear ended December 28, 2002.
 
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Los Angeles, California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DEMETRIA R. 1

,

Plaintiff 

v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 2

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Civil Case No. 20-3227 (RJL/GMH) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

UM OPINION 

On June 30, 2022, Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey issued a Report and 

Recommendation [Dkt. # 17] in this case. Under Local Rule 72.3(b ), the parties had 

fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation to file 

written objections to the proposed recommendations. To date, no objections have been 

filed. Upon careful consideration of the record in this case and of Magistrate Judge 

Harvey's Report and Recommendation, Accordingly, for the reasons set forth i'n. the Report 

and Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS and ACCEPTS the Report and 

Recommendation in full. 

1 Plaintiffs name has been partially redacted in accordance with the recommendation of 

the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference 

of the United States. 

2 The current Defendant has been substituted in place of her predecessor pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 25( d).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER

BECERRA, Attorney General; KRISTEN K.

CHENELIA, Deputy Attorney General;

TAMI M. KREZIN, Deputy Attorney

General; PAUL E. O ’ CONNOR, Deputy

Attorney General; SARAH M. BRATTIN,

Deputy Attorney General; LUCAS L.

HENNES, Deputy Attorney General;

JOANNA B. HOOD, Deputy Attorney

General; MATTHEW R. WILSON, Deputy

Attorney General,

D efendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 15559

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 02100

- JAM

- DMC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 15559

California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a viol at ion of the

Contract Clause . We have jurisdiction u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo the district court ’ s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes

,

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bland’s action because Bland failed to

allege facts su fficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff

must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief) ; see

also RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley , 371 F.3d 1137, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004)

( stating framework to review a claim under the Contract Clause).

AFFIRMED.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply633Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  ERIC VITELLI (... (not verified)PermalinkApril 5, 2020 - 3:23pmThat last section was put in a year before I was born. GREAT JOB guys! I am also a Plumber/Pipe Fitter and like to see tradesman do it and do it right!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# L_2012112EN.01009501.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

FINAL ACT

FINAL ACT

II.   DECLARATIONS

D.   DECLARATION BY THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

Declaration by the Republic of Croatia concerning the transitional arrangement for the liberalisation of the Croatian agricultural land market

Having regard to the transitional arrangement with respect to the acquisition of agricultural land in the Republic of Croatia by natural and legal persons from the EU/EEA, as provided for in Annex V of the Act of Accession,

Having regard to the provision which stipulates that the Commission, at the request of the Republic of Croatia, shall decide upon the extension of the seven-year transitional period for an additional three years, provided that there is sufficient evidence that, upon expiry of the seven-year transitional period, there will be serious disturbances or a threat of serious disturbances on the agricultural land market of the Republic of Croatia,

The Republic of Croatia declares that, should the above-mentioned extension of the transitional period be granted, it will endeavour to carry out the necessary steps to liberalise the acquisition of agricultural land in the specified areas before the expiry of the fixed three-year period.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                             DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE

APRIL 23, 2002                                                      US$1,250,000


         Inventoy.com, Inc. ("Borrower"), a Delaware corporation with a place of
business at 6786 Willowood Drive, Suite G1006, Boca Raton, Florida 33434, for
value received, hereby promises to pay to the order of Private Investment
Company Ltd. ("Lender"), or Lender's assigns, at any place the holder hereof
designates, the principal sum of One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand
Dollars (US$1,250,000) in lawful money of the United States of America on demand
at any time from and after April 23, 2002 and on or before October 23, 2002, and
to pay interest accrued thereon in like money upon maturity on the unpaid
principal balance hereof at the Citicorp prime rate plus 1% per annum,
calculated on the basis of a 365 day year and actual days elapsed. Payments
shall be first applied towards outstanding interest, and then towards reduction
of principal.

         This Note may be pre-paid at any time without penalty. Borrower by its
execution below (i) waives diligence, demand of presentment, notice of
nonpayment and protest, and assents to extensions of the time of payment, or
other indulgence, without notice; (ii) represents and warrants that this
instrument has been executed and delivered by a duly authorized officer of the
Borrower and shall constitute the legal, valid, binding and enforceable
obligation of the Borrower; (iii) hereby consents to the jurisdiction of any
federal and state court located in the County of New York, and waives any
defenses it may have based upon improper venue and forum non conveniens; and
(iv) agrees to pay reasonable fees of legal counsel, and disbursements thereof,
incurred by Lender in any collection or enforcement proceeding relating hereto.

                                                   Inventoy.com, Inc.


                                                   By: /s/ Douglas Kaplan
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Douglas Kaplan
                                                       President
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1368

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Larry D. Saddler, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 10, 2009 Filed: November 12, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Larry Saddler appeals following the district court’s 1 order revoking his supervised release and imposing a revocati on sentence of 24 months in prison. Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release, see United States v. Edwards , 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); and we also conclude th e revocation sentence is not unreasonable, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment. (n.4); United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review); United States v.-2- Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608-09 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming sentence exceeding advisory Guidelines revocation range). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
#### State v. Ngum

25232

08/25/2004

Affirmed
REPRODUCE LOCALLY. Include form number and date on all reproductions. OMB No. 0581-0177

Exp. 1/31/2024. Destroy previous versions.

Handler _______________________________________ Page ___ of ____

PRODUCER LIST FOR REFERENDUM ON MARKETING ORDER NO. 930

Producer’s Name and Address Pounds Delivered to Handler

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0581-

0177. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information.
REPRODUCE LOCALLY. Include form number and date on all reproductions. OMB No. 0581-0177

Exp. 1/31/2024. Destroy previous versions.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, 

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in 

any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 

program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American 

Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA

through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of 

the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to 

USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of the registrant certifies, to the best of his or her
knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 (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 contained in the Report, fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



Dated: May 10, 2004                      /s/ Kenneth I. Moch
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Kenneth I. Moch
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 10, 2004                      /s/ Elizabeth A. O'Dell
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Elizabeth A. O'Dell
                                         Vice President, Finance
                                         Secretary and Treasurer
25942

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed