alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY LEE JONES III, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BARTH, Sgt.; HOWARD, Officer; COSBY, 

Officer; THOMPSON, Officer; WARREN 

JOHNSON, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15205 

D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00028-MMDCSD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Johnny Lee Jones III appeals pro se from the district 

court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action alleging First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-15205 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of 

discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones’s motion for 

a preliminary injunction because Jones failed to demonstrate that such relief is 

warranted. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he 

is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an 

injunction is in the public interest). 

Jones’s motion to expedite (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied as moot.

Jones’s request to certify a constitutional question to the attorney general 

(Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### PATRICK v. STATE.

No. 26691.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1953.

*563No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Clyde Suddath, County Atty., Henrietta, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for murder; the punishment, life imprisonment.

The record contains no statement of facts and no bills of exception, and the proceedings appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 AvWorks Aviation Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joe Eccles, Chief Executive Officer and 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.





Date: March 28, 2014
By:
/s/ Dror SvoraiName: Dror SvoraiTitle:President and Treasurer





A signed original of this certification 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.
EXHIBIT 23



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in



(i)

Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-73803), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Employee Savings and Retirement Plan,



(ii)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-50841) and Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-59602), each of which relate to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,



(iii)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-29765) which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan,



(iv)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-41068) which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan,



(v)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-109000), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 2003 Stock Option Plan, and



(vi)

Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-125694) which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan for Salaried Associates, Associates Investment Plan for Hourly Associates and Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico



of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated March 26, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporations managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 4, 2007.



ERNST & YOUNG LLP



New York, New York

April 3, 2007
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
  (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.
 Date: May 7, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Alain CouderAlain CouderPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Volecia RAMSEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 29, 1955.

Hiram Brock, Jr., Harlan, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PÉR CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of possessing alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale in local option territory.

The appellant admitted having two glasses or mugs of beer in her hands when the officers entered the restaurant where she was working. She apparently was intending to serve beer to customers seated at a booth. Eighty-six cans of Carling’s beer and ale and twenty-five additional quarts of beer were found on the premises.

Finding no error prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights, the judgment is affirmed.

Judge HOGG not sitting.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 16, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00150

- CV

Allen Weah , Appellant

v.

Estancia Villas LLC , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTIC ES SMITH AND THEOFANIS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgm e nt signed by the tr i a l court on March 8, 2024

. Having

reviewed the record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### Rena REAGINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27597.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 11, 1955.

No 'attorney on-appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

'PER' CURIAM.

The conviction is for . the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills-of exception,. All proceedings appear, to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment'is affirmed.
#### SCHICK v. SCHICK.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 22, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1953.

See also, Ky., 240 S.W.2d 533.

Robert Hubbard, Louisville, for appellant.

George Heffner, Louisville, for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

The judgment entered below granted the husband a divorce, denied alimony to the wife and directed the husband to pay the wife $25 per week for the maintenance of their two young children and her attorney’s fee in the sum of $200. The wife appeals.

The litigants were married on September 14, 1940, and lived as husband and wife, except for a six-months period of separation, until they parted in June, 1949. They have two children, a boy and a girl, ages seven and two, respectively.

On October 29, 1949, the husband filed a petition in equity, in which he stated as a ground for divorce that his wife had “inflicted such cruel beating or injury, or attempt at injury, as indicated an outrageous temper in the wife, or probable danger to his life, or great bodily injury, from his remaining with her.” KRS 403.020(4) (e)\ He waived custody of the two children. The wife answered and 'counterclaimed, traversing the material averments of the petition and alleging that the husband had abandoned her on June 20, 1949, without fault on her part. She prayed that his petition be dismissed, and asked for alimony and an allowance for the maintenance of the children. The case was heard before a master commissioner, who made a report recommending that the husband be granted a divorce from bed and board and that the wife be denied alimony. On exceptions to the commissioner’s report, the chancellor granted an absolute divorce and denied alimony to the wife.

No useful purpose could be served by recounting the numerous incidents leading to the separation of the parties, but, suffice it to say, the evidence was sufficient to justify the chancellor in granting a divorce to the husband and in refusing alimony to the wife. The chancellor very carefully considered the financial condition of the parties, the needs of the children, and the services performed by the wife’s attorney, and we. do not feel disposed to disturb his findings.

The judgment is affirmed.
* 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

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20899

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRAVIS PAUL McDONALD,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-389-22

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel for Travis Paul McDonald has filed a motion to

withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967). McDonald has received a copy of the motion and

brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this

direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### Roy Lee BOHANON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27629.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1955.

No attorney; on appeal.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. .

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of whis-ky for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500.

The statement of facts, in narrative. form shows that the State proved that the sheriff was permitted to. search appellant’s home .and found therein 72 half-pint bottles of whisky which were introduced.in .evidence.

The'records were offered -showing - the dry status of Hall County, where the' whisky was found.

There are no bills of exception and no objections appear to have been offered to the admission of evidence. ‘

*874.Appellant did not-testify and’ offered no evidence in his behalf. «

Appellant’s motion to quash the information because it did not allege that the local option election was legally and properly ordered by the Commissioner’s Court was properly overruled. Cox v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 267 S.W.2d 830; Carpenter v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 354, 135 S.W. 2d 1002.

The evidence as to appellant’s possession of 72 half-pints of whisky in a dry area gave rise to the presumption qf the prima facie evidence statute, Art. 66(5-23 a (2), V.A.P.C., and sustains the jury’s verdict finding that appellant possessed the whisky for the purpose of sale.

The judgment is affirmed.
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:a807fcc1-1e91-4abd-8be1-d49e14800938,g:6ef38a5d-eb72-4dd6-b516-90ea9b1325dc-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:pvh="http://www.pvh.com/20220209" xmlns:xbrli="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.pvh.com/20220209">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021/dei-2021.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="pvh-20220209_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="pvh-20220209_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="DocumentandEntityInformationDocument" roleURI="http://www.pvh.com/role/DocumentandEntityInformationDocument">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Document and Entity Information Document</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
  <xs:element id="pvh_CoverPageAbstract" abstract="true" name="CoverPageAbstract" nillable="true" xbrli:periodType="duration" substitutionGroup="xbrli:item" type="xbrli:stringItemType"/>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated March 29, 2010, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007 included in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of that report in the Companys Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos.
33-64582, 333-55933, 333-55941, 333-52876 and 333-136864).



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/    Burr Pilger Mayer, Inc.
|San Francisco, California     
|March 31, 2010
Exhibit
23.1




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-133110 on Form S-3 and  No. 333-133108 and No. 333-143782 on Form
S-8 of American CareSource Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2009
relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements which appear in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American CareSource Holdings, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2008.






/s/
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP


Des
Moines, Iowa




March 31,
2009
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6643

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DANIEL J. BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville

. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00016

- NKM

- RSB

- 1 ; 3:13

- cv - 80559

- NKM

- RSB )

Submitted : August 23, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Daniel J. Brown , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel J. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order d enying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 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) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 constitutional 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 constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 12850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 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 of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; ADRD U 19 CENTER.
    Date: March 6, 2024.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Natalia Strunnikova, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NINDS/NIH/HHS, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-496-3755, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dab4bbaebbb6b3bbf4a9aea8afb4b4b3b1b5acbb9ab4b3b2f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="503e3124313c39317e232422253e3e393b3f2631103e39387e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: February 14, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03382 Filed 2-16-24; 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>
Exhibit 10.20

Amendment Agreement

This Amendment Agreement
(the Amendment) is made as of October 22, 2009 and further amends the letter agreement dated November 1, 2004, as amended (the Letter Agreement), between you and IHS Inc. (the Company), containing the
terms and conditions of your employment with the Company.

In light of recent changes relating to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code, the parties have agreed to amend the provisions of the Letter Agreement affected by such changes as follows:



| | 1. | Section 7 of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended to delete Section 7(a)(iii), which currently reads:
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) your Target Bonus for the fiscal year of such termination, prorated for the number of days that have elapsed during such
year.



| | 2. | Section 7 of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended to add immediately following the words In addition to the foregoing lump-sum payment, a new
subsection (v) which reads as follows:
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(v) You will receive the portion of your
Annual Bonus for the fiscal year of termination that is tied to the achievement of the Companys performance objectives for such fiscal year, based on the Companys actual achievement of such performance objectives for the full fiscal
year, pro-rated for the number of days that have elapsed during such fiscal year prior to the termination of your employment. You will receive any portion of your Annual Bonus for the fiscal year of termination that is tied to achievement of
personal objectives for such fiscal year at Target level for the achievement of such personal objectives, pro-rated for the number of days that have elapsed during such fiscal year prior to the termination of your employment. The payment
provided in this subparagraph (v) will be made following the close of the fiscal year of termination at such time as the Annual Bonus for such fiscal year is paid by the Company to its then current executives;



| | 3. | Except as expressly amended herein, the Letter Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IHS Inc.By:

/s/ Jeff SissonJeff SissonSenior Vice PresidentChief Human Resources Officer




|                              
|------------------------------
|Accepted and Agreed:          
|                              
|/s/ Jeffrey R. Tarr           
|Employee Name: Jeffrey R. Tarr