alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, EX REL., James BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jeffery ORMSBY; 30 John/Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-50080 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 20, 2017

James Brooks, Pro se.

Jack Kenneth Whitehead, Jr., Esq., Whitehead Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, Kent M. Adams, Esq., Wilson, Elser, Mos-*357kowitz, Edelman & Dicker, L:L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

WIENER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant, James Brooks, a non-lawyer proceeding *pro se,*filed this False Claims Act suit against Defendants-Appellees, in his capacity of relator for the United States. The United States declined to intervene as a “party,” leaving it as “a real party in interest.”

The district court dismissed this action without prejudice after giving Brooks, a federal prisoner, time to obtain representation by a duly licensed' ’and qualified attorney to prosecute this case. The,court did so because, even though Brooks could represent himself *pro se,*he could not do so for the benefit of the United States, a non-party for whom he is merely the -relator.

Brooks asserts on appeal, as he did in the district court, that he is entitled to bring this *qui tarn*action as relator of the United States and to do so *pro se,*just as he could any other action on his own behalf. Brooks relies primarily on *U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. New York,*556 U.S. 298 (2009).

We have carefully considered the positions of the parties as set forth in their appellate briefs and their record excerpts, including the district court’s orders of October 6 and November 14, 2016, and January 6, 2017, and we are convinced beyond cavil that the district court got it right. As this is a matter of first impression in this court, we echo the holding of the district court that, regardless of the right of anyone to represent himself *pro se,*he is not representing himself when he brings an action solely as relator for another non-intervening party, including" the United States, and therefore cannot do so *pro se.*The January 6, 2017 Order of the district court dismissing this action for failure properly to prosecute it and to comply with the orders of that court — principally its order to obtain representation by a licensed attorney authorized to represent the United States as a true party in interest in this lawsuit — is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00941

- CR

Adrian Gilbert TORRES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR9951W

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED January 30, 2019.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice
#### Wayne WILKINSON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4884.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 10, 1978.

*944Wyatt R. Skaggs, Director, Natrona County Public Defender, Casper, for appellant.

V. Frank Mendicino, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Allen C. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLIN-TOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the district court revoking probation is affirmed upon the authority of *Knobel v. State*of *Wyoming,*Wyo., 576 P.2d 941.
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To The Board of Directors and Shareholders' of
General Nutrition Companies, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

We  have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet  of General 
Nutrition  Companies, Inc.  and  subsidiaries as of July 19, 1997 and the 
related consolidated  statements  of  operations  and cash  flows for the 
twelve and twenty-four  weeks ended  July  19, 1997  and  July  20, 1996.  
These  financial  statements  are  the  responsibility  of  the Company's 
management.

We  conducted  our review in accordance with standards established by the  
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review  of interim 
financial   information   consists  principally  of  applying  analytical 
procedures  to  financial  data  and  of   making  inquiries  of  persons
responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less
in  scope  than   an   audit conducted   in   accordance  with  generally  
accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective of which is the expression
of an opinion regarding   the   financial  statements  taken  as a whole.  
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based   on   our   review,  we   are   not   aware   of   any    material 
modifications that should be made to such consolidated financial statements
for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of General Nutrition  Companies,
Inc. and  subsidiaries   as   of   February   1,  1997,  and  the  related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for the year then ended  (not presented  herein);  and in our report dated 
March  31, 1997, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set  forth  in  the 
accompanying consolidated  balance  sheet as of February 1, 1997 is fairly  
stated,  in  all  material  respects, in   relation  to  the  consolidated
balance sheet from which it has been derived.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
August 4, 1997
ANIMAL CARE AID

Questions? Email us at CenterforAnimalWelfare@usda.gov 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal Care

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

AC-20-001 • Issued May 2020

Tips for Shelter and Housing 

at Drive-Through Animal Parks

This Animal Care Aid is part of a series developed to provide information about managing animals housed at drive-through parks. 

PRACTICAL TIP

Placing multiple feeders 

and water sources inside 

shelters, with sufficient distance 

between them, ensures the less 

dominant animals have access 

to food and water at all times.

Drive-through animal parks are often large 

with varied terrain and vegetation. Natural features 

such as trees or rock formations may not be enough 

in all weather conditions or for all animals 

to have access. 

TYPES OF SHELTER

Here are a 

couple of things 

to think about 

when deciding 

on the right 

shelters for 

your facility.

WEATHER CONDITIONS: Extra shade 

structures may be all that’s needed in 

warmer climates with mild winters, but 

in regions that have colder climates or 

extreme weather events, animals may 

need structures with sturdy walls for 

comfort and protection. 

HOW MANY SHELTERS 

ARE NEEDED?

Evaluate the natural features available to protect 

the animals from inclement weather. Make sure 

there are enough shelters with enough space for 

all animals to seek refuge. 

Less dominant, shy, or 

incompatible animals may 

need separate housing if 

they are excluded from 

shelter by the larger or 

more dominant animals. 

Monitor your animals’ 

interactions throughout the year. Seasonal hormonal fluctuations, such 

as those associated with breeding or rutting, can impact compatibility. 

Your park may need more shelters at 

certain times of the year to ensure all 

animals have the access they need.

TYPE OF ANIMALS: Shelters need 

to be sturdy enough to house your 

animals safely. Size of the shelter is also 

important to accommodate each species 

comfortably.

Parks with expansive natural habitats 

may also have environmental hazards 

that could prove challenging to 

geriatric, immature, or smaller species. 

This may include steep embankments, 

low-lying areas that are likely to flood, 

or muddy areas where some animals 

could get trapped. 

Consider taking a few simple 

precautions to keep your animals safe: 

l Place “bubblers” in lakes or ponds that 

tend to freeze in winter to help prevent 

animals from falling through the ice. 

l Fill deep holes and remove excessive 

debris.

l Exclude animals that are not likely to 

thrive by housing them in separate 

areas or fencing off problem areas.

Environmental 

Considerations
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIXIN TANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71191 

Agency No. A205-181-359 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. 

Lixin Tang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 

* 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 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71191 

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the 

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We 

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on internal inconsistencies in Tang’s testimony and inconsistencies between 

his testimony and documentary evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility

determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Tang’s

explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 

1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that 

Tang’s documentary evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for 

asylum or withholding of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th 

Cir. 2014). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Tang’s asylum 

and withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 

1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Tang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony that 

the agency found not credible, and Tang does not point to any other evidence that 

compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See 

Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,250
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,920)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,476
<PP&E>                                         150,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,870
<BONDS>                                         17,953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           293
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,943
<SALES>                                         74,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,986
<CGS>                                           42,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   767
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,543
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,794
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,749
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,749
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32<F1>
<FN>
<F1>On December 2, 1998, the Company's Board of Directors authorized a 2-for-1
stock split effected in the form of a stock dividend. The distribution was made
on December 29, 1998 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on
December 8, 1998. Financial Data Schedules reported prior to the stock split
have not been restated to reflect this stock split.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019280EN.01004001.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission

(Case T-244/18) (1)

(Research and technological development - Financial regulation - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - J-Web grant agreement - Enforceable decision ordering recovery - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 280/55)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A Katsimerou and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 on the recovery of the sum of EUR 76 282,08, together with interest, from the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                    Pursuant to 18 United States Code ss.1350


     The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Second Quarter ended June 30, 2004 of Fisher Scientific International Inc.
(the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                               /s/ Paul M. Montrone
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Paul M. Montrone
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               August 9, 2004























A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fisher Scientific International Inc. and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
H. Res. 449 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 1, 2015. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3457) to 

prohibit the lifting of sanctions on Iran until the Government 

of Iran pays the judgments against it for acts of terrorism, 

and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature 

of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on 

Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 

adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 

without instructions. 
2 

•HRES 449 EH 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill 

(H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 

for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 

such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against the conference report and against its consideration 

are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

conference report to its adoption without intervening motion 

except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable. 

SEC. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative 

day of October 1, 2015, for the Speaker to entertain motions 

that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 

of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with 

the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of 

any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
----

| 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/      Clayton W. Williams |
|------------------------------|
| Clayton      W. Williams     |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
| November      7, 2008        |
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs        |
| Mel      G. Riggs            |
| Chief      Financial Officer |
| November      7, 2008        |
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

**Annex 34. Item 8.2.4. – Section 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. of Chapter 2.4.5. Infection with *P. marinus***

CHAPTER 2.4.5.INFECTION WITH *PERKINSUS MARINUS*

[...]

2.2.	Host factors

2.2.1.	Susceptible host species

~~Eastern oyster, *Crassostrea virginica*; Pacific oyster, *C. gigas*; suminoe oyster, *C. ariakensis;*mangrove oyster,*C. rhizophorae*; Cortez oyster, *C. corteziensis*(Andrews 1996; Calvo *et al.,* 1999; Calvo *et al.,* 2001; Villalba *et al.,* 2004; Cáceres-Martínez *et al.,* 2008); softshell clam, *Mya arenaria*; Baltic macoma, *Macoma balthica* (Dungan *et al.,* 2007).~~

Species that fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *Perkinsus marinus* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Animal Health Code* (*Aquatic Code*) are: American cupped oyster (*Crassostrea virginica*), Ariake cupped oyster (*Magallana* [Syn. *Crassostrea*] *ariakensis*), Cortez oyster (*Crassostrea corteziensis*) and palmate oyster (*Saccostrea palmula*).

2.2.2.	~~Susceptible stages of the host~~Species with incomplete evidence for susceptibility

~~All stages after settlement are susceptible.~~

Species for which there is incomplete evidence to fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *P. marinus* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Code* are: Gasar cupped oyster (*Crassostrea tulipa*), mangrove cupped oyster (*Crassostrea rhizophorae),* and Pacific cupped oyster (*Magallana*[Syn. *Crassostrea*] *gigas*).

In addition, pathogen-specific positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results have been reported in the following species, but no active infection has been demonstrated: Columbia black oyster (*Crassostrea columbiensis*), soft shell clam (*Mya arenaria*), and stone oyster (*Striostrea prismatica*).

 [...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8