alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50888

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIAN JAVIER RODRIGUEZ-GARDEA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1200-1-H

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julian Javier Rodriguez-Gardea (“Rodriguez”) appeals his

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. He argues that

the district court erred by not granting his motion for judgment

of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove venue

in the Western District of Texas.
No. 02-50888

-2-

Rodriguez failed to timely raise a venue objection. 

See United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 392-93

(5th Cir. 2001). Thus, he did not preserve the issue for

appellate review. 

This appeal lacks merit and borders on frivolity. 

Accordingly, Rodriguez’s attorney is cautioned against bringing

such appeals in the future. We remind him of his obligations

to refrain from raising frivolous issues on appeal and to avail

himself of the procedures outlined in Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967) for disposing of cases that present no

nonfrivolous issues. See United States v. Humphrey, 7 F.3d 1186,

1191 (5th Cir. 1993). We also admonish him that all counsel are

subject to sanctions for bringing frivolous appeals. See United

States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994). Because

Rodriguez failed to preserve the sole issue raised on appeal,

the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
November 1, 2012

Honorable Dr. Steven Chu

Secretary of Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Secretary Chu:

We are writing to thank you for adjusting DOE’s rulemaking schedule for set top boxes to allow time for

negotiations on a potential voluntary agreement among stakeholders. Over the past several months,

the parties have met repeatedly and exchanged a range of proposals. We were not able to reach

agreement by our self

- impo sed deadline of October 1, but extended discussions in an attempt to get an

agreement. Unfortunately, despite intensive, good

- faith efforts, the parties were not able to reach a

consensus and the undersigned Advocates have now terminated negotiations.

Even though we were not successful in reaching a consensus agreement, DOE’s pause in the regulatory

process provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to become better informed about the

opportunities and constraints with respect to set top box energy ef ficiency improvements. We thank

you for providing us the opportunity to pursue a negotiated outcome. All of us will continue to be

actively engaged in our own significant efforts to achieve greater energy efficiency in set

- top boxes.

Sincerely yours,

/s / Noah Horowitz

Andrew deLaski Noah Horowitz

Executive Director Senior Scientist

Appliance Standards Awareness Pro ject Natural Resources Defens e Council

/s/ Neal Goldberg /s/ Doug Johnson

Neal Goldberg Doug Johnson

Vice President & General Counsel Vice President, Technology Policy

National Cable & Telecommunications Association Consumer Electronics Association

Cc: Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Roland Risser, John Cymbalsky, Jeremy Dommu
**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 Quarterly Report of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. (the “Company”) on 

Form10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(a)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

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

 

Dated this 8th day of August, 2006.

 

 

 
|   | /s/ Linda H. Simmons    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Linda H. Simmons        |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | and Treasurer           |   |

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and will be retained by Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000248 17-MAY-2018 10:00 AM
Exhibit 32.1


                       Wings & Things, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     I, Linda L. Perry, Principal Executive and Financial Officer of Wings &
Things, Inc. certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

a.   the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
     June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.   the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Date: July 31, 2003
                                  /s/ Linda L. Perry
                                  _________________________________________
                                  Linda L. Perry
                                  Principal Executive and Financial Officer
#### KENTUCKY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Richard Davis McAFEE, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 3, 1957.

*900No attorney for complainant.

A. W. Redmon, Daniel B. Boone, Edward J. Ewen, Jr., Louisville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On March 30, 1956, Richard Davis Mc-Afee was convicted in the United States District Court, for the Western District of Kentucky, of willfully and knowingly failing to make his income tax return to the Director of Internal Revenue for the calendar year of 1952, and his punishment was fixed at imprisonment for nine months and a fine of $5,000. A certified copy of the judgment was filed in this court by the Secretary of the Kentucky State Bar Association, and in accord with RCA 3.335 a rule was issued against Mr. McAfee to respond within twenty days to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law by this court.

Mr. McAfee filed his response in due time setting up three defenses: 1. He was not convicted of a felony; 2. the offense of which he was convicted under Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(a) involved no' moral turpitude; 3. his conduct both before and subsequent to his conviction has been good.

In support of the response he filed a brief in which he cited In re Hallinan, 43 Cal.2d 243, 272 P.2d 768, wherein the Supreme Court of California in an exhaustive opinion held an intention to defraud the United States government is not an essential element in the offense of which Mr. McAfee was convicted and that such conviction does not involve moral turpitude. The Hallinan opinion cites many cases from the United States Supreme Court, among which are United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 52 S.Ct. 416, 76 L.Ed. 917, and United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381, to the effect that a conviction under Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(a) or § 145(b) does not necessarily involve moral turpitude. Attached to respondent’s brief is a copy of the brief filed in the Supreme Court of California in the Hanninan case which fully covers the question of whether a conviction for failing to file a federal income tax return involves moral turpitude. A reading of this brief convinces us that it does not.

We conclude that respondent’s conviction is not sufficient ground upon which to disbar Mr. McAfee from the practice of law in this State. But Mr. McAfee’s conduct is not condoned by us and we think he should be, and he is hereby, reprimanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2299

DEREK N. JARVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STAPLES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-00244-PJM)

Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Reenah Kim, SEYFARTH SHAW, 

LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action alleging discrimination. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis 

v. Staples, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-00244-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 30, 2010). 

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.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 2, 2017

Order 

Clerk

June 2, 2017

154776(57)

VANESSA OZIMEK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 154776

v COA: 331726

Wayne CC: 13-109046-DC

LEE J. RODGERS,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Legal Services Association of 

Michigan to file a brief amicus curiae in this matter is GRANTED. The amicus brief 

submitted on May 26, 2017, is accepted for filing.
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  quarterly  report of OnScreen  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company"),  on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended June 30, 2005, I hereby certify
solely for the purpose of complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The quarterly  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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company

OnScreen Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/ John"JT" Thatch                       Dated this 15th day of August 2005
    ----------------------------------
           John "JT" Thatch
       CEO/President/Director
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC
MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 11, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ RAYMOND E. DELLERBA                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                   |  |  |  | Raymond E. Dellerba, President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                 
|                   |  | 
|                   |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**ACCOUNTANT'S
      AWARENESS LETTER**








Securities
      and Exchange Commission


450
      Fifth
      Street, N.W.


Washington,
      D.C. 20549








We
      are
      aware that our report dated October 19, 2005 on our review of the interim
      financial statements of I-Trax, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2005
      and for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 and
      2004
      included in the Form 10-Q for the three-month and nine-month periods ended
      September 30, 2005 is incorporated by reference in the Company’s Registration
      Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-110891 and 333-114604). Pursuant to Rule 436(c)
      under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered as part
      of the Registration Statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning
      of
      Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.








/s/
      Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP





**GOLDSTEIN
      GOLUB KESSLER LLP**


New
      York,
      New York





November
      9, 2005
4 08/28/2012 11:51 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 @] 002 

P.O. Box 92007 u.s. Department 

of Transportation 

Western-Pacific Region 

Office of Regional Counsel Los Angeles, CA 90009~2007 

Federal Aviation 

AdminiStration 

August 28, 2012 

,SENT VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL, 

~:;ederal Aviation Administration 

~!00 Independence Avenue, SW 

\Vasbin.gton, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Pax:202-493-5142 

and 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office ofHearings, M~20 

tr.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Bldg., Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

RE: In. the· Matter ofM&M Tanks. ln..£.. 

FAA Docket Number: TO BE ASSIGNED 

DMS No. FAA~2011-lll8 

(310) 725-7105 

(310) 725·6816 facsimile 

1J 

--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----··- -·-------

Please be advised *at the parties have reached a settlement in the above referenced matter. 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. 13.215, the FAA hereby withdraws the complaint in the above 

referenced matter. 

Si11cerely, 

NAOMIT~UD 

Regional . nsel ~ .... II ' /: / ... "\ I I :/ : .I . _) 

i I /1 · ;t;]_ _j_ 

By: l~lfl/J¥1// ·-------~ ... = Cl.ifistopher Merrill 

Attorney 

cc: Stanford M. J. Manuia, Esq., 701 Bishop Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, Fax: 808-532-4704
#### Sundheim, Appellant, *v.*Beaver County Building and Loan Association.

Argued April 18, 1939.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.

*10June 27, 1939:

*George A. Baldwin, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Charles McC. BarricJcman,*of *Buchanan & Barrickman,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Such an order will not be reversed unless the appellate court is free from all doubt that the court below erred in refusing judgment. After reading the pleadings and considering the arguments of counsel, we cannot say that plaintiffs’ right to summary judgment, without trial, is sufficiently clear and free from doubt.

Following the usual course, we shall not disturb the order appealed from; nor discuss the rules of law applicable to the case until an opportunity is had to develop the facts at trial.

Order affirmed.
#### Mary JONES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John DAVIS and Carrie Davis, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 22451.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 6, 1957.

Carl R. Johnson and Lee Vertís Swinton, Kansas City, for appellants.

Roy A. Larson, Jr., Sprinkle, Knowles & Carter, Kansas City, for respondent.

CAVE, Judge.

This is a suit to set aside a deed alleged to have been made in fraud of a creditor, and also that the grantor therein wás mentally incompetent and unduly influenced. The trial resulted in a judgment setting aside the deed.

Title to real estate is involved within the meaning of Sec. 3, Art. V, Constitution of 1945, V.A.M.S. and jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court. Walton v. Van Camp, Mo.Sup., 283 S.W.2d 493; Balch v. Whitney, Mo.Sup., 273 S.W.2d 497; and Goodman v. Crader, Mo.Sup., 227 S.W.2d 457.

We observe that plaintiff’s petition merely alleges that she is a creditor of the grantor in the deed, who was deceased at the time of the filing of the suit. Apparently there was no administration of his estate and plaintiff’s claim was never reduced to judgment. The general rule is that a simple creditor cannot maintain a suit to set aside a conveyance of a debtor as fraudulent until the demand has been reduced to judgment. Daggs v. McDermott, 327 Mo. 73, 34 S.W.2d 46, and cases cited therein.

Not having jurisdiction of the cause, we cannot pass upon any question presented on appeal to this court.

The cause is transferred to the Supreme Court.

All concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT*

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       REGISTRANT'S
     NAME AND STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION         PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP
-----------------------------------------------------------------  ---------------------
<S>                                                                <C>
U. S. SUBSIDIARIES
  C/P Products Corp, an Indiana corporation                                  100%
  United Sales and Warehouse of Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation             100%

FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES:
  The Coast Distribution System (Canada) Inc., Quebec, Canada                100%
  Ai-wek a.k.a Eurasia Recereational Vehicle Accessories Taiwan              100%
    Company
</TABLE>


     In accordance with the  instructions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item 601
of  Regulation  S-K,  there  have  been  omitted  those  subsidiaries  that,  if
considered  in the  aggregate  as a single  subsidiary,  would not  constitute a
significant subsidiary as of December 31, 2001.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 5, 2017

a1212

Order 

Clerk

January 5, 2017

154088

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154088

COA: 331913

Wayne CC: 13-008583-FC

ALFRED DELANO CAMPBELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2016 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: CHARLES T. F OTE,

Appellant

______________________

2018

- 2311

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/455,526.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J ULIE S. G OLDEMBERG

, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,

Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented

by J ASON C. W HITE , Chicago, IL; W ILLIAM R. P ETERSON

, Houston, TX.

A MY J. N ELSON

, Office of the Solicitor, United States

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandri a, VA, argued for

appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by T HOMAS W.

K RAUSE

, J OSEPH M ATAL

, R OBERT M C B RIDE

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :P ER C URIAM (R EYNA

, T ARANTO

, and S TOLL

, Circuit

Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 12, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES F-2 AND F-3 OF THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,562
<SECURITIES>                                     3,841
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,711
<PP&E>                                          10,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,445
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,451
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>