alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Angel FLORES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne BARNHART,* Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 01-16056.

D.C. No. CV-00-00390-RCB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided Feb. 6, 2003.

Before HUG, ALARCON, and GRABE R, Circuit Judges.

*

 Jo Anne Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor, Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security. Fed R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Angel Flores appeals the district court’s order remanding the case to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”). Both parties agree that the case should be remanded. However, at issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in remanding the case to the Commissioner to consider lay witness evidence, while simultaneously upholding the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings with regard to the testimony of Flores and Flores’s physician.

We agree with the district court that the ALJ erred in not considering the lay witness testimony. *Nguyen v. Chater,*100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir.1996); *Dodrill v. Shalala,*12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.1993). Because of this error, the district court was correct to remand.

However, the lay witness testimony, which both parties agree was improperly ignored, is potentially relevant to all issues in the case, including Flores’s credibility and the significance of Dr. Grimes’s opinion, which relied on medical history provided by Flores. Thus, on remand the ALJ should reconsider all the evidence and make new determinations as to Flores’s credibility and Dr. Grimes’s opinion, in light of the lay witness testimony. In addition to considering all the previously presented evidence, on remand the ALJ is free to consider additional evidence or an independent medical opinion if it wishes to do so.

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that it was error for the ALJ to not consider the lay witness testimony and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings. However, we reverse the district court’s decision to the extent that it placed any restrictions on the scope of the remand. The district court order is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Appellant is awarded costs.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1514

AN ACT

To authorize the obligation and expenditure of appropriated

funds for a 2.4 percent increase in pay and allowances

and a 5.2 percent increase for basic allowance for quarters for the members of the uniformed services.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1514 ES

1 That notwithstanding the Executive order of the Presi2 dent, or any other provision of law, funds appropriated

3 by Public Law 104–61 for purposes set forth in section

4 601 of H.R. 1530, the Conference Report accompanying

5 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

6 1996, House Report No. 104–406, One Hundred Fourth

7 Congress, First Session, as passed by the House of Rep8 resentatives on December 15, 1995 and by the Senate on

9 December 19, 1995, may be obligated and expended for

10 such purposes in accordance with such section: Provided,

11 That authorities provided under this section shall expire

12 on April 2, 1996.

Passed the Senate December 30, 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1514

AN ACT

To authorize the obligation and expenditure of apof the uniformed services. for basic allowance for quarters for the members pay and allowances and a 5.2 percent increase propriated funds for a 2.4 percent increase in
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Cal Bay International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger E. Pawson, Chief
Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof) and Chief Financial Officer
(or equivalent thereof) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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/ Roger E. Pawson
                              -------------------------
                              Roger E. Pawson
                              Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
                              December 26, 2006
#### William H. Earl et ux., appellants, *v.*Collins Winters, respondent.

On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, whose, opinion is reported in *Winters*v. *Earl, 7 Dick. Ch. Rep. 58.*

*Mr. Charles M. Woodruff,*for the appellants.

*Mr. Edward M. Colie,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

Decree affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Lippincott, Magie, Eeed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown, . Green, Krueger, Sims, Smith — 13.

*For reversal*— None.
#### James R. STRINGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lee Roy BLACK, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 88-4126.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1992.

James E. Ostgard, Minneapolis, Minn, (court-appointed), Kenneth J. Rose, Durham, N.C. (court-appointed), Dennis Sweet, Jackson, Miss, (court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Marvin L. White, Jr., Felicia C. Adams, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for respondents-appellees.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:

The holding of this court in *Stringer v. Jackson,*909 F.2d 111 (1990) has been re*39versed and the cause has been remanded to this court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court. — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367.

Accordingly, our opinion in *Stringer v. Jackson,*862 F.2d 1108 (1988), is modified by deleting therefrom the entirety of sub-part III., C. Aggravating Circumstances, and the judgment of the District Court is VACATED insofar as it holds that there' was no constitutional error in the jury’s use of the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance.

This case is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the State of Mississippi initiates appropriate proceedings in state court within a reasonable time after the issuance of our mandate. In all other respects, the judgment of this court in 862 F.2d 1108 and the judgment of the District Court are REAFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Gary S. Jacob, certify that:

1)    I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

2)    Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3)    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4)    The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



5)    The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);



|Date: May 15, 2008 | /s/GARY S. JACOBGary S. Jacob Chief Executive Officer
|------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lennora R. BANKS-DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7846.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 27, 2008.

Decided Feb. 12, 2003.

Lennora R. Banks-Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Gregg Robert Nivala, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Lennora Banks-Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from a final order denying relief under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the *698district court that Banks-Davis has not satisfied the standards under § 2253(c)(2) or *Rose. See United States v. Banks-Davis,*Nos. CR-00-65; CA-02-628-3 (E.D.Va. Oct. 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(e) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00347

- CV
In the Interest of K.N.H., a child
On Appeal from the 309th District Court of Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 58588

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 27 , 2022
##### 



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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity as an officer of Emmis Communications Corporation (the Company),
that, to his knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
November 30, 2003, 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 such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: January 14, 2004/s/ JEFFREY H. SMULYAN
Jeffrey H. Smulyan
Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick L. Alexander,Chief Executive Officer 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) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   /s/ Patrick  L. Alexander |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick L. Alexander                  |
| Chief Executive Officer               |
| November 14, 2008                |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.333-14933, Form S-8 No. 333-40899, Form S-8 No. 333-47782, Form S-8 No. 333-70196, Form S-8 No.333-74852, Form S-8 No. 333-101509, and Form 333-120299) pertaining to the Digene CorporationOmnibus Plan, the Digene Corporation Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the Digene Corporation 1997Stock Option Plan, and the Digene Corporation Amended and Restated 1999 Incentive Plan and in theRegistration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-83540, Form S-3 No. 333-100555, and Form S-3 No.333-112901) of our reports dated August 12, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Digene Corporation, Digene Corporationmanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Digene Corporation, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended June 30, 2005.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLPMcLean, Virginia
Exhibit 4.2

 

China Auto Rental Inc.

 



 

	
NAME AND ADDRESS OF   SHAREHOLDER
    	
CERTIFICATE NUMBER
    	
DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS
    	
PAR VALUE PER SHARE
    
	
 
    	
FROM
    	
TO
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
CLASS OF SHARES
    
	
 
    	
DATE OF ISSUE
    	
NO. OF SHARES
    	
 

CONSIDERATION PAID
    
	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

SHARE CERTIFICATE

 

OF

 

China Auto Rental Inc.

 



 

INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

 

Authorised Capital: US$50,000.00 divided into 50,000 shares of a nominal or par value of US$1 each

 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDERMENTIONED PERSON IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF THE SHARES SPECIFIED HEREUNDER SUBJECT TO THE RULES AND LAWS GOVERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPANY

 

	
SHAREHOLDER
    	
NO. OF SHARES
    	
DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS        
    	
CERTIFICATE NUMBER
    	
DATE OF ISSUE
    
	
FROM
    	
TO
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

GIVEN UNDER THE COMMON SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE STATED ABOVE AND IN THE PRESENCE OF

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
DIRECTOR   / SECRETARY
    


 

NO TRANSFER OF ANY OF THE ABOVE SHARES CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS CERTIFICATE
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Orion Acquisition Corp. II (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 operation of the Company.


April 7, 2003                          By: /s/ Christopher A. Marlett
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Christopher A. Marlett
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report of Trimol Group Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
periods covered in the Report. /s/ Yuri
 BenensonYuri
 BenensonChief
 Executive OfficerTRIMOL
 GROUP, INC. April 14, 2008 - 46 -
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

July 7, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Petition of Transportation Technology Center, Inc. for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Dear Madam or Sir: 

The Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) respectfully submits the attached request for an exemption from 

several provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) to assist the North American Railroads 

advance the use of small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for the evaluation of railroad infrastructure and operations. 

TTCI is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), which represents the North 

American Class I freight railroads and Amtrak. It manages a program of Strategic Research Initiatives for the AAR 

and provides technological services to railway industries around the world. 

This request is motivated primarily by the desire to maximize safety in railroad operations by assisting member 

railroads develop and demonstrate techniques for inspection of railway track and structures as well as techniques for 

initial assessment of derailments and other incidents such as fires and potential hazardous material releases using 

UASs. In addition, TTCI desires to occasionally perform these inspections and assessments for railroads or transit 

agencies. 

While integration of UASs into the railroads’ inspection regime would not eliminate the current need for in-person 

visual track inspection required by the Federal Railroad Administration it would allow the railroads to broadly 

evaluate assets and operations with UAS, resulting in a safer and more efficient railroad network. Further, use of 

UAS for initial assessment of derailments or other incidents could greatly reduce the risk of exposing first 

responders to hazardous conditions. 

Accordingly, the grant of an exemption is consistent with Congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Modernization Act), that safe systems be permitted in the national airspace 

prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use of these systems. 

Sincerely 

Richard B. Joy 

55500 DOT Road 

P.O. Box 11130 

Pueblo, Colorado 81001-0130 

Richard B. Joy 

Principal Investigator 2 

Engineering Services 

(719) 584-0524 

e-mail: richard_joy@.aar.com
#### ALLEN v. ALLEN.

No. 35794.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 20, 1954.

Ryan Kerr, Altus, for plaintiff, in error.

W. J. Ivester, Altus, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Eugene Allen, hereinafter called plaintiff, filed an action for divorce against Ester Allen, defendant. Defendant filed a cross-petition and was granted a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The trial court awarded the household goods to the defendant and divided the real property, which consisted of a house and two lots, equally between the plaintiff and defendant.

The defendant appeals from the division of the property. This is- the single issue presented.

The evidence discloses that plaintiff and defendant were married June 23, 1943. Sometime .during that year they bought two lots in Altus, Oklahoma, and the next year bought a house for $200 and moved it on to the lots. They occupied this house as their home and made improvements thereon which enhanced the value of the property until at the time of the trial it was appraised at $1,100. In July, 1945, plaintiff executed to defendant, a .deed to the house and lot. Defendant argues that this real property was her separate property. If the finding that the property was jointly acquired is sustained by the evidence the judgment ‘should be affirmed. Greer v. Greer, 194 Okl. 181, 148 P.2d 156; Martin v. Martin, 206 Okl. 35, 240 P.2d 1057. In support of her contention defendant argues that on or about December 18, 1946, she paid plaintiff $100 for the extra lot. Plaintiff does not deny that he received the $100, but denies that it was his intention.to part with the entire title to the lot. Defendant further argues that she paid $900 in debts over the years of their marriage out of her separate earnings. She also testified that she paid $460 for a panel truck which plaintiff needed in his work. She argues that since the home place was deeded to her and since she bought the lot for $100 considering the payments made for the truck and the $900 she paid in debts she is entitled to all of the real property.

The decree made no disposition df a truck. The record is uncertain as to whether plaintiff still has the truck. The decree disposed of the household goods and the real property.

We have held that the question of whether or not the property acquired and owned is jointly acquired is one of fact. In Martin v. Martin, supra, we said:

> “Before this court will reverse an order adjusting property rights in a divorce proceeding it must clearly appear that the trial court abused its discretion.”

*773 The testimony is in conflict. There is substantial evidence that despite the constant marital difficulties both plaintiff and defendant worked and both contributed to the acquisition of the property; that at the time of the filing of the divorce action it was held jointly and was the jointly acquired property of plaintiff and defendant. The trial court did not err in dividing the real property. It constituted the home and only place of abode of either plaintiff or defendant and was as shown by substantial evidence acquired by their joint efforts and industry.

Judgment affirmed.