alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

December 19, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-12222

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00086-CV-WCO-2

ARMENTROUT ROEBUCK MATHENY

CONSULTING GROUP, P.C., 

a Georgia Corporation, 

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant, 

versus 

JACKSON COUNTY WATER AND SEWERAGE 

AUTHORITY, 

a Georgia Public Utility Authority, 

PRIME ENGINEERING INCORPORATED, 

a Georgia Corporation, 

Defendants-CounterClaimant-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(December 19, 2007)
 Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of *

Florida, sitting by designation.

2

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, WILSON, Circuit Judge, and MARTINEZ,*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Armentrout Roebuck Matheny Consulting Group, P.C., (“Armentrout”)

appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Jackson County

Water and Sewerage Authority and Prime Engineering, Inc. (together, the

“Defendants”). Finding that Armentrout granted the Defendants an implied license

to use its copyrighted materials, the district court granted summary judgment for

the Authority and Prime. We vacate and remand.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “applying

the same legal standards that bound the district court, and viewing all facts and

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Cruz v.

Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 428 F.3d 1379, 1382 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows “that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

Upon careful consideration and after the benefit of oral argument, we

conclude that a reasonable jury, weighing the factors discussed in Nelson-Salabes,
 For instance, the following facts lend support to the finding that Armentrout did not 1

intend to grant an implied license: (1) the parties were involved in an ongoing relationship, (2)

the contract restricted Jackson County’s ability to transfer all rights under the agreement without

Armentrout’s written consent, and (3) Armentrout placed copyright notices on its materials.

3

Inc. v. Morningside Dev., LLC, 284 F.3d 505, 516 (4th Cir. 2002), could find that

Armentrout did not grant the Defendants an implied license to use its copyrighted

materials. Therefore, as a genuine issue of material fact exists, summary

1

judgment was inappropriate. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and remand this case to the district

court for trial on the merits.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Michael T. Flavin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Date: March 10, 2010/s/ MICHAEL T. FLAVIN, PH.D. Michael T. Flavin, Ph.D. Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerAdvanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.


77

---



QuickLinks
Opinion filed January 13 , 2011



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 10

- 00 358

- C V

__________

MISTY RHEA ABNEY , Appellant

V.

NICHOLAS RYAN HUFFMAN , Appellee

On Appeal from the 118 th District Court

Glasscock County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1523

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court signed the decree on

August 2, 2010. Appellant, Misty Rhea Abney, timely filed a motion for new trial on August 9,

2010. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 329 b(a). In order to have timely perfect ed the appeal, appellant was

required to file the notice of appeal on or before November 1, 2010. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(a)( 1);

see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4.1( a). Appellant did not file h er notice of appeal until November 24, 2010.

Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely. We dismiss the appeal.

A clerk’ s record has not been filed in this court. However, the trial court clerk ’s office

forwarded a docketing statement setting out the filing dates of the relevant documents along with2

copies of those documents attached. When the clerk’s docketing statement was received in this

court, the clerk of this court wrote the parties on D ecember 2, 2010, informing them that it

appeared that the notice of appeal was untimely . The clerk’s letter requested appellant to provide

a written response on or before December 17, 2010, containing a reasonable explanation for the

failure to timely fil e the notice of appeal. The clerk’s letter further advised appellant that the

appeal may be dismissed absent a reasonable explanation for the untimely notice of appeal.

There has been no response to our letter of December 2, 2010. 1

Absent a timely notice of appeal, a timely motion to extend time, or the proper showing

of compliance with the good faith requirement of Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.

1997), the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not invoked. Appellant has not met any of these

requirements. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

January 13 , 2011

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.

1 Additionally, the clerk directed appellant in a letter dated December 1, 2010, to forward the filing fee in this case as

soon as possible. Appellant has not done so as of the date of this opinion.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51245

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER MARTINEZ-ULLOA,

also known as Javier Martinez-Zulloa,

also known as Javier Martinez-Venezuela,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-825-1 

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

June 19, 2002

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

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Martinez-Ulloa appeals the sentence imposed following

his conviction of being found in the United States after removal

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence

is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Martinez-Ulloa

complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal following an

aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencing
No. 01-51245 

-2-

provision violates the Due Process Clause. Alternatively,

Martinez-Ulloa contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the

aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Martinez-Ulloa acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50313 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ADRIAN GAMEZ-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-02-CR-550-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Adrian Gamez-De La Cruz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gamez-De La Cruz contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Gamez-De La Cruz maintains thatNo. 03-50313 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Gamez-De La Cruz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
WACO

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

NO: WA:20-CV-00479-ADA

ORDER RESETTING TELEPHONIC TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING

12/10/2020

vs.

at 10:00 AM

12/04/2020

Alan D Albright

SIGNED on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

§

§

§

§

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., §

EMC CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

The Court hereby sets and directs the parties, or counsel acting on their behalf, to appear by

phone for a telephone conference on December 10, 2020 at 10:00 AM . Please call (866) 434-5269

with access code 9678090 to be included in the hearing.

Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 1
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 on Form 10-K of Rotech Healthcare Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Philip L. Carter, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven P. Alsene, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of each such officers knowledge:

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

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



|       |  |                                      
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|       |  | /S/    PHILIP L.
CARTER              
|Name:  |  | Philip L. Carter                     
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:  |  | March 5, 2010                        
|       | 
|       |  | /S/    STEVEN P.
ALSENE              
|Name:  |  | Steven P. Alsene                     
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer              
|Date:  |  | March 5, 2010                        

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Oklahoma Nonassociated Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Oklahoma Nonassociated Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,158  | 1,219  | 1,499  | 1,559 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,368  | 2,731  | 3,085  | 3,537  | 3,800  | 4,454  | 4,838  | 5,926  | 6,884  | 7,990 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 9,856  | 9,935  | 10,145 | 7,878  | 10,953 | 9,142  | 10,823 | 8,976  | 8,814  | 6,332 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,278  | 5,830  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### Bonwit Teller, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 13, 1957.

*John J. Daly*for appellant.

*Frederick M. Wittenstein*and *Samuel Sidney Venitt*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The levy upon which the service of process herein was based was void and ineffective since it was issued against a receiver appointed by the Supreme Court, without the permission of that court *(Walling*v. *Miller,*108 N. Y. 173, 177). Under the circumstances, the subsequent proceedings for service of process, taken in attempted compliance with section 48 of the Municipal Court Code, were void and there was no valid service of the summons. The judgment entered thereon upon default was thus rendered without due service of process and was accordingly also void *(Davidoff*v. *Chipornoi,*101 Misc. 291, 294; also, see, *Vilas*v. *Vilas,*205 Misc. 988, 990, 991).

The order should be reversed and motion granted to the extent of vacating the judgment herein, with $10 costs.

Hofstadter, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 88 DB 2023 (No. 50 RST 2023)

:

SEAN PATRICK RITCHIE : Attorney Registration No. 309626

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM INACTIVE STATUS : (Philadelphia)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10 th day of August , 2023, the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated July 27, 2023, is approved and it is ORDERED that

SEAN PATRICK RITCHIE, who has been on Inactive Status, has demonstrated that he

has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for admission to

practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a

member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the

invest igation and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5550 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5550

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on liquid crystal display 
                        (LCD) panel assemblies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

 Mr. Bilbray introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on liquid crystal display 
                        (LCD) panel assemblies.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY (LCD) PANEL ASSEMBLIES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.85.21 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to liquid crystal display (LCD) 
panel assemblies) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 8.1
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationMining Investments Jersey Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources (UK) Limited
    
    United KingdomMorila Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsSociété des Mines de Morila SA
    
    Republic of MaliRandgold Resources (Côte dIvoire) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources (Côte dIvoire) SARL
    
    Côte dIvoireSociété des Mines de Tongon SA
    
    Côte dIvoireRandgold Resources (Mali) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources Mali SARL
    
    Republic of MaliKankou Moussa SARL
    
    Republic of MaliRandgold Resources (Senegal) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources (Somilo) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsSociété des Mines de Loulo SA
    
    Republic of MaliRandgold Resources Tanzania (T) Limited
    
    TanzaniaSeven Bridges Trading 14 (Proprietary) Limited
    
    Republic of South AfricaRandgold Resources (Burkina) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources Burkina Faso SARL
    
    Burkina FasoRandgold Resources T1 Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources T2 Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources T3 Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRandgold Resources (Kibali) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsRAL 1 Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel Islands




---



##### 



Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationKibali (Jersey) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsKibali 2 (Jersey) Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsKibali Services Limited
    
    Jersey, Channel IslandsMoto Goldmines Australia (Pty) Limited
    
    AustraliaBorder Energy (Ptd) Limited
    
    AustraliaWestmount Resources NL
    
    AustraliaBorder Resources NL
    
    AustraliaMoto Goldmines Limited
    
    Canada0858065 BC Limited
    
    CanadaKibali Goldmines SPRL
    
    Democratic Republic of CongoKibali Cooperatief UA
    
    The NetherlandsBorder Energy East Africa (Pty) Limited
    
    Uganda