alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-31034 USDC No. CA-94-2556

__________________ ROBERT E. LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD L. STALDER ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

- - - - - - - - - - - December 19, 1995 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert E. Love moves this Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He has failed to present a nonfrivolous appellate issue regarding why he failed to make a good-faith effort to exhaust prison administrative remedies. Because Love's motion for IFP presents no issue of arguable merit and is thus frivolous, IFP is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6415** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ROBERT LEE MCQUEEN, a/k/a Preacher , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00253

- F

- 1; 5:12

- cv - 00693

- F )

Submitted : August 30, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , MOTZ, Circuit Judge , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Lee McQueen, Appellant P ro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Tobin Webb Lathan, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudol f A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lee McQueen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the deni al of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitu tional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McQueen has not made the requisite showing. Ac cordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny McQueen’s motions for a copy of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing and for an emergency medical procedure, both at the Government’s expense , and to amend his petition for a certificate of appealability
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6512
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINH VAN DAO, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-507, CA-97-167-AM) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vinh Van Dao, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Dao , Nos. CR-94-507; CA-97-167-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 18, 1997). 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
#### Frank H. MANSFIELD et al., Appellants, v. Laura DAVENPORT et vir, Appellees.

No. 14002.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 21, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1962.

*913Glendon Roberts, Bandera, Mueller & Criss, Austin, for appellants.

Robert I. Wilson, Kerrville, for appellees.

POPE, Justice.

 This is a partition suit. Laura Mansfield Davenport, joined by her husband, sued her seven brothers and sisters for a partition of the Mansfield Ranch in Bandera County. The trial court granted the prayer for her partition, but also ordered all eight shares partitioned. The seven defendants have appealed, contending that they should not be compelled to divide their shares when they desire to keep them together. The Davenports do not resist this contention. They urge only that the appeal is premature, this being merely the first order in the partition suit.

We overrule the contention that the appeal is premature. The court, acting upon stipulated facts, made the essential findings and then gave directions concerning the manner of partition. It ordered that the .partition.be “by lot in accordance with the statute.” By its first order or judgment in a partition suit, a court may properly give such directions as may be necessary and appropriate. Rule 766, Texas Rules Civil Procedure; White v. Mitchell, 60 Tex. 164; Marmion v. Wells, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 704.

When plaintiffs obtained a judgment for the partition of their equal one-eighth share of the ranch, they won their lawsuit. The stipulations entered into upon the day of the trial show that all other estate matters were amicably determined, that the ranch was capable of partition in kind, and that each heir owned an equal undivided one-eighth interest in the ranch. Two of the defendant heirs filed general denials, and the other five, by their pleadings, asked that the ranch be kept together except for plaintiffs’ share. When the stipulations were made in open court, no one other than plaintiffs sought by pleadings or otherwise to have his share set over to him. On this appeal, plaintiffs have made no contention that all eight shares should be partitioned. When one party desires the partition and is entitled to it, and the other seven desire to keep their shares together, “the court not only has the power, but it is a duty, to accede to their request.” James v. James, Tex.Civ. App., 164 S.W. 47.

Insofar as the judgment orders a partition in favor of the Davenports in kind, the judgment is affirmed. Insofar as it compels a partition in kind of the remaining seven shares, the judgment is reformed. The seven defendant heirs will be permitted to hold their shares jointly without partition. Kremer v. Haynie, 67 Tex. 450, 3 S.W. 676; Glasscock v. Hughes, 55 Tex. 461, 469; Welch v. Brock, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 940; Gorman v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 177, 178. Costs are adjudged against appellees.

The judgment is affirmed as reformed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID PAUL HEALY

,

Appellant s

,

v.

SIMONE BARRON

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 0 27

- C V

Appeal from the

352 nd D istrict Court

of Tarrant C ounty, Texas

(TC# 352

- 286480

- 16 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw filed by Appell ee ’ s counsel on appeal.

The motion is GRANTED. The Court has changed its records to reflect that Simone Barron will

appear as p ro se . The Appellee is to notify this Court immediately in writing if new counsel has

been retained.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2021

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.2




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-3 (File Nos.  33-35140,  33-77396,  333-43809,  333-83215,
333-34550,  333-33436,  333-72226,  333-100315),  Form S-8 (File Nos.  33-30595,
33-52574,  33-57004,  33-63321,  333-00431,   333-04679,  333-27673,  333-48454,
333-58384,  333-59718,  333-75304) and Form S-1 (File Nos. 333-68759, 333-67947)
of Cytogen Corporation of our report dated February 14, 2003, except for Notes 1
and 3, as to  which  the date is  March  28,  2003,  relating  to the  financial
statements of PSMA Development Company LLC, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 28, 2003
EXHIBIT 32

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BOE Financial Services of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of the undersigned 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 and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); 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 June 30, 2007, and for the periods then ended.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ George M. Longest, Jr.
|George M. Longest, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer   



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Bruce E. Thomas    
|Bruce E. Thomas        
|Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2007
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1449 V

UNPUBLISHED

MARITZA SERRANO

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: April 24, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)

Roberto Ruiz

- Comas

, RC Legal & Litigation Services PSC

, San Juan

, PR , for P etitioner.

Robert Paul Coleman, III , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On September 21, 20 18

, M aritza Serrano filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a S IRVA resulting from adverse

effects of an influen za vaccination received on October 21, 2015 . Petit ion at 1

. The

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 2 1, 2020, Respondent filed a joint Ru le 4 (c) report and pro ffer on award
of compensation ( “ Proffer ” ). On April 24, 2020

, a ruling on entitlement was issued

, finding P etitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA

. The April 21, 2020 Proffer

indicated that P etitioner should be awarded $ 107,500.00

. Proffer at 3

. In the Proffer,

R espondent represented that P etitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the

E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access

to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure o f which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such
material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012 ).2

the record as a whole, I find that P etitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the

Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award P etitioner a lump sum
payment of $ 107,500.00 in the form of a check payable to P etitioner

. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that w ould be available under § 15 (a)

.

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this

decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

BASIC ENERGY SERVICES L.P. 

AND JEREMY NICHELSON, 

RELATORS,

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00256-CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ 

of mandamus against the Honorable Patrick Garcia, Judge of the 384th District Court of El Paso 

County, Texas, and concludes that Relator’s motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus 

should be granted. We therefore dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with 

the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2018.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.6

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Diamond Triumph Auto
Glass, Inc.(the "Company") hereby certifies that:

            (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
      for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: November 15, 2004                             /s/ Michael A. Sumsky
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Michael A. Sumsky
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
      Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
      whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
      incorporation language in such filing.
Kenworth Tractor

Green

Single axle

Vin: 2XKHMAM7A3BM277905

Miles: 20235

Build Date: 2/3/10

GVWR: 33000

GAWR: 12000

GAWR: 21000

Tires: Front/Rear 11R 22.5

Engine: PX-6 280 Cummins # 73073877

Transmission: Model EH-8E406A-T 

Serial # K0779381

Rear axle: Spicer Serial # U100340280 

Model S21-170 

Ratio 00557

Length overall: 20 feet

Height: 9 ft 6 in, not including exhaust tip. 10ft 6 in with tip.

Wheelbase: 152”

Width: 96”
Exhibit 4.9


 


New Dutch Originator Accession Agreement


 


To:          Security Agent


 


From:      Buhrmann Office Products Nederland B.V.


 


Master Definitions and
Framework Deed (dated 27 September 2000 as amended and restated on 28 September
2001, 18 July 2002 and 16 April 2003) (the  Master Definitions and Framework
Deed)


 


This
Agreement shall have expressly and specifically incorporated into it the
provisions set out in the Master Definitions and Framework Deed (hereafter
referred to as the Provisions),
as though the same were set out in full in this Agreement mutatis mutandis and subject to English
law.  In the event of any conflict
between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions, this Agreement
shall prevail.


 


We
refer to Clause 4 of the Master Definitions and Framework Deed.


 


With
effect from the date specified below, Buhrmann Office Products Nederland, B.V.
incorporated in The Netherlands with registered number 33272529, hereby agrees
to become an Additional Dutch Originator and to be bound by the terms of:


 


1.                                       the Master Definitions and Framework Deed;


 


2.                                       the Servicing Agreement dated 27 September 2000, as amended and
restated on 28 September 2001 and 18 July 2002;


 


3.                                       the Deed of Amendment (English Law Governed Transaction Documents)
dated 18 July 2002; and


 


4.                                       the Dutch Master Receivables Purchase Agreement dated 27 September
2000 as amended and restated on 18 July 2002,


 


subject
to and in accordance with Clause 4 of the Master Definitions and Framework
Deed.


 


The
following is the address for notices to the proposed Additional Dutch
Originator:

Buhrmann Office Products Nederland B.V.

Atoomweg, 103, 3542 AA Utrecht

PO Box 8129, 3503 RC Utrecht

The Netherlands

Attention:  Jouke van der Veer, Finance
Director

Fax:  +31 30 248 41 04


 

















 


Copy
to:

Buhrmann N.V.

Hoogoorddreef 62

1101EE Amsterdam Zuidoost

The Netherlands

Attention:  Marcel Graven and Raf
Monnens


 


This
Agreement is governed by English law.


 


	
  By:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Authorised
  Signatory of Buhrmann Office Products Nederland B.V.

  



 


Date:       16 April 2003
EXHIBIT 23.1

National Home Health Care Corp. and Subsidiaries
Scarsdale, New York

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  of National  Home Health Care Corp.  and  Subsidiaries  on Forms S-8
(Registration  Nos. 033-61315 and 333-46076 of our report dated October 20, 2004
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of National Home
Health Care Corp. and  Subsidiaries  appearing in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2004.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
--------------------

BDO Seidman, LLP
Valhalla, New York
October 29, 2004
About Scott | Español



### Search

Terms and Conditions CCR Home Colorado Register Colorado Revised Statutes

Search eDocket

Rulemaking Login Rule History

Contact Us 

# Code of Colorado Regulations eDocket 

# Details of Tracking Number 2011-00670

Tracking Number 2011-00670 

### Type of Filing Permanent Rule 

### Department 1000 Department of Public Health and Environment 

### Agency 1001 Air Quality Control Commission 

### CCR Number 5 CCR 1001-14



### CCR Title AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, DESIGNATIONS AND EMISSION BUDGETS 

### Adopting Agency Hearing Date 12/15/2011 

### Hearing Time 09:00 AM



### Hearing Location Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmen t, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Conference Roo m, Denver, CO 80246 

### Proposed Rule ProposedRuleAttach2011

- 00670.DOC Additional Information AddInfoAttach2011

- 00670.DOC

Description of Subjects/Issues to consider a proposed revised PM10 Maintenance Pla n for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Ar ea. Additionally, a change to the “Air Quality Standard s – Air Quality Standards, Designations and Emission Budget s” regulation is proposed to update the PM10 emission budget for the Steamboat Springs area.


### Comments SOS & PUBLISHER: Rule correction include redline changes only. 

### Public Name Christopher Dann 

### Public Title Public Information Officer 

### Public Telephone 303-692-3281 

### Public Email christopher.dann@state.co.us 

### Submitted in response to issues raised by COLS/OLLS ? N



### Purpose/Objective of Rule To adopt a revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. Approval of the associated documents by both the Ci ty of Steamboat Springs and Routt County. Additionally, a change to the Air Quality Standards, Designations a nd Emission Budgets regulation is proposed to update t he PM10 emission budget for the Steamboat Springs area

. 

### Statutory Authority Section 25-7-105(1)(a)(I), 24-4-103 and 25-7-110, 1 10.5 and 110.8 C.R.S., as applicable and amended 

### Adopted Rules AdoptedRules02011

- 00670.DOC Redline Redline2011

- 00670.DOC Adopted Date 12/15/2011 

### Attorney General Opinion 12/22/2011 

### Effective Date 01/30/2012 

### Inserted into CCR Date 01/20/2012 

# Page 1 of 1

12/17/2013 http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/eDocketDetails.do?tr ackingNum=2011

- 00670
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report of Capital Gold Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Christopher Chipman, Chief Financial 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) 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/
Christopher Chipman
 Christopher
Chipman
 Chief
Financial Officer
 March 19,
2009