alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Larry Joe MOORE, and Carolyn Jean Moore, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FDIC, as Receiver for Huntsville National Bank, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-2739

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 15, 1993.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1993.

David L. Thornton, Houston, TX, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Daniel H. Kurtenbach, Washington, DC, for FDIC.

Arthur M. Meyer, Jr., Timothy Gehan, Sif-ford, Edson & Meyer, Dallas, TX, for Huntsville Nat. Bank, et al.

Robert E. DeLong, Smither Martin Henderson, Morgan, DeLong & Mathis, *107Huntsville, TX, for Keeland, Adams, Campbell, Cook, Nash & Neiderhofer.

Michael Kuhn, Raymond L. Gregory, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, TX, for River Oaks Bank & Brewer.

R. Howard Mashburn, Green & Mashburn, B.D. Griffin, Conroe, TX, for Green.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs sued for wrongful foreclosure on their property. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The brief filed by plaintiffs on this appeal contains only conclusions without reference to the record. No issues are acceptably presented in accord with the rules. The appeal is dismissed.

The reasons for the district court’s summary judgment were stated in open court, but nothing of this ruling is brought forward in the record. That record stands 8^ inches high. Plaintiffs’ brief specifies no place in the record and identifies no proof to support statements to the effect that the foreclosure was made without notice to the plaintiffs and despite the stay of a bankruptcy court. Defendants have answered specifically with reference to contrary summary judgment evidence in the record.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require references to the record to support statements of fact. R. 28(a)(4), R. 28(e). The Fifth Circuit’s Local Rule 28.2.3 states:

> Every assertion in briefs regarding matter in the record shall be supported by a reference to the page number of the original record where the matter relied upon is to be found.

This dismissal will be reconsidered if, with motion for rehearing filed within 14 days, plaintiffs support the motion with a succinct statement of any material issue of fact raised by the summary judgment record, identifying the supporting evidence by page reference and also by reference to the contrary evidence cited by defendants’ briefs (with page numbers) and an explanation of why the summary judgment was unwarranted in that respect.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 3676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01050]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Primate Aging Networking and Infrastructure.
    Date: February 21, 2024.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kaitlyn Noel Lewis Hardell, Ph.D., M.P.H., 
Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National 
Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg. Suite 
2E405, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 555-1234, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#365d575f425a4f58185e574452535a5a76585f5e18515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="513a3038253d283f7f39302335343d3d113f38397f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 16, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01050 Filed 1-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3) and related Prospectus of Gish Biomedical,
Inc. for the registration of 240,240 shares of its common stock and to the
incorporation by reference therein of our report dated August 23, 1996, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Gish
Biomedical, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
June 30, 1996 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Ernst & Young, LLP


Orange County, California
November 13, 1996
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60310 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTOINE MATTHEWS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-CR-125

- - - - - - - - - -

March 29, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals his jury conviction and sentence for

conspiracy to possess cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and use of a

communication facility in furtherance of a drug crime, 21 U.S.C.

§ 843(b), complaining of insufficiency of the evidence and

attacking the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines

disparate treatment of cocaine base and cocaine powder. Our

review of the record and the arguments and authorities convince
No. 95-60310

-2-

us that no reversibile error was committed. The evidence was not

insufficient. See United States v. Gallo, 927 F.2d 815, 820-21

(5th Cir. 1991). Appellant's challenges to the constitutionality

of the guidelines are without merit. See United States v.

Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 579-80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

529 (1994) (Eighth Amendment challenge); United States v. Watson,

953 F.2d 895, 897-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 928

(1992) (due process and equal protection challenges). 

Appellant's motion to strike portions of the Government's brief

is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We haveissued our report dated April 21, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005 included in the Annual Report of TIMCOAviation Services, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of TIMCO AviationServices, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-07021, effective June 27, 1996), and Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 (File No. 333-51479-01, effective November 11, 1998)./s/ GRANT THORNTON LLPGreensboro, North Carolina
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Edward DUNHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-4141

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 24, 1993.

Kenneth Edward Dunham, pro se.

H.S. Garcia and Bob Wortham, U.S. At-tys., Sherman, TX, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Edward Dunham was found guilty by a jury of the offenses of bank robbery by intimidation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2. Dunham filed an appeal in which he raised four issues: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) indictment and evidence variance; 3) the admission of improper identification testimony; and 4) error in the jury instructions. This court affirmed the conviction.

Dunham subsequently filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the grounds that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the offense and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney consented to the trial of this offense. The district court denied his motion without requiring responsive pleadings. Dunham appeals.

Dunham has abandoned his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on appeal. *See Hobbs v. Blackburn,*752 F.2d 1079, 1083 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*474 U.S. 838, 106 S.Ct. 117, 88 L.Ed.2d 95 (1985). Dunham now contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the offense prohibited in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He asserts that the district court lacked jurisdiction over this offense because he was not charged with an offense that was committed on federal property, the high seas, or in Washington, D.C. Additionally, Dunham states that the Constitution authorizes federal district courts to try cases involving offenses committed on federal land, those committed in Washington, D.C., and offenses of treason, but not the offense of robbery of a Pilot Point, Texas, bank. Dunham’s argument that the federal government violated his Tenth Amendment rights by trying him for a federal offense when the offense he committed was exclusively a state law violation is frivolous. The Supreme Court has previously addressed this issue. *See Westfall v. United States,*274 U.S. 256, 47 S.Ct. 629, 71 L.Ed. 1036 (1927); *see also Toles v. United States,*308 F.2d 590, 594 (9th Cir.1962), *cert. denied,*375 U.S. 836, 84 S.Ct. 79, 11 L.Ed.2d 66 (1963).

*46Dunham’s argument that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to conduct proceedings regarding the robbery of a federally insured state bank has no arguable basis in law or in fact and is thus frivolous. *Ancar v. Sara Plasma,*964 F.2d 466, 468 (5th Cir.1992). IT IS ORDERED that Dun-ham’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir.R. 42.2.
Exhibit 21.1

                           D & E Communications, Inc.

                           Subsidiaries of the Company
                             as of December 31, 1996
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a listing of all subsidiaries of the Registrant, the state of
incorporation of each, and the names under which subsidiaries do business.


                                State of         Doing Business
Subsidiary                      Incorporation    Under Name of
----------------------------    -------------    ----------------------------
Denver and Ephrata Telephone                     Denver and Ephrata Telephone
  and Telegraph Company          Pennsylvania      and Telegraph Company

Red Rose Communications, Inc.    Pennsylvania    Red Rose Communications, Inc.

D & E Marketing Corp.            Pennsylvania    D & E Marketing Corp.
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Wisedriver.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martha Padron, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Wisedriver.com, Inc. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Dated: May 19, 2006

 

**WISEDRIVER.COM, INC.**

 

By: */s/ Martha Padron*

Martha Padron

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2087

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Edward Jones

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: November 19, 2014

Filed: November 24, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Edward Jones directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he 1

pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief filed

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that the court abused its

discretion in declining to vary below the advisory Guidelines range. After careful

review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(appellate review of sentencing decision), we find that the court did not abuse its

discretion in declining to grant the requested variance, see United States v. Gonzalez,

573 F.3d 600, 608 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of motion for downward

variance where court considered sentencing factors and properly explained rationale). 

We also conclude that the within-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively

reasonable. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (if sentence is within Guidelines range,

appellate court may apply presumption ofsubstantive reasonableness). Finally, after

independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988),

we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,

and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    May 15, 2009
    
    By
    
    /s/ Kent W. Peters
    
    Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)Date
    
    
    
    Kent W. Peters
' • 1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0641 

ROBERT L. ALLUM, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Defendant and Appellee. 

MAR 0 8 2022 

Bovven Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

qtate rif Montana 

ORDER 

Representing himself, Robert L. Allum moves this Court to recuse for cause: Justice 

McKinnon, Justice Rice, Justice Baker, Justice Shea, Justice Sandefur, and Justice 

Gustafson. Through counsel, the State of Montana has filed a response in opposition. 

Allum contends that the Justices of this Court "have a history of denying Allum's 

constitutional rights to due process, and exceed their constitutional authority, on multiple 

occasionsH" He provides the list of his prior proceedings with this Court and their 

outcomes, concluding that he "cannot receive a fair and impartial hearing, before the 

Justices." Allum requests that the Justices recuse themselves. 

The State responds that Allum's motion fails to set forth any legal justification for 

the recusal or disqualification of these Justices. The State points out that the only 

commonality in this Court's prior decisions is due to these six Justices' "history of ruling 

against [Allum]." The State posits that Allum's relief is untenable and has no basis in 

statute, case law, or rule. The State concludes that Allum's motion should be denied 

because Allum has provided no legal grounds for recusal. 

Allum's motion is not well-taken. We conclude that the State correctly points to the 

lack of any legal reason for recusal for cause. Allum seeks a different outcome in his 

instant proceeding, based upon his prior history with this Court and its decisions. "A judge 

shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required 

03/08/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0641
by Rule 2.12 or other law." Reichert v. State, 2012 MT 111, ¶ 49, 365 Mont. 92, 

278 P.3d 455 (quoting Mont. Code of Jud. Cond. 2.7). Allum's motion is without merit. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Allum's "Motion to Recuse Justices Laurie McKinnon, 

James A. Rice, Beth Baker, Jim Shea, [Dirk] Sandefur, and Ingrid Gustafson, for Cause[,]" 

is DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record and to Robert L. Allum personally. 

DATED this day of March, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

Justices
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

 

Solelyfor the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned ChiefFinancial Officer of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as amended (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Young Ham                       |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Young Ham, Chief Financial  Officer |
| March 16, 2006                      |

 

----
June 10, 2015 

 

Mr. Joseph Barbre 

Dear Mr. Barbre: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 11, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1298), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
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

I, Adam  Mauerberger,  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of Atlantic Wine
Agencies  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  certify,  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date: August 9, 2005

/s/ Adam Mauerberger
--------------------
    Adam Mauerberger
President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   RECOGNIZING THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL MANAGEMENT 
                               FOUNDATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. STEVE COHEN

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 14, 2012

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the 
Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) for its 35th anniversary. 
Over the past 35 years CMF has aided this body so that the Members can 
provide our constituents with better services both here in DC and in 
districts all across this nation.
   Through online webinars and publications on best practices, CMF 
provides many services that improve communications between DC and 
district staffers. Keeping it Local--the Congressional Management 
Foundation's detailed guidebook on managing state and district 
offices--allows local managers and staff to maximize their involvement 
and productivity with constituents.
   Among the many pieces of advice Keeping it Local has to offer, some 
of the most important items include its step-for-step instruction on 
how to establish and carry out a coordinated agenda, manage citizen 
outreach, organize district events while also maintaining superior 
communication networks between offices. The materials provided in this 
book and other CMF publications have helped my staff run our offices 
more effectively both at home and on Capitol Hill. On behalf of my 
staff, I would like to personally thank CMF and congratulate them on 
their 35th anniversary of serving Congress.

                          ____________________
```