alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 15695

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:13

- cv - 60957

- RLR

ELIZABETH JENKINS, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus GRANT THORNTON LLP, GRANT THORNTON LLP HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, et al. Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (July 11, 2016) Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, ∗ Dis trict Judge.

∗ Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Chief Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-15695 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff

- Appellant Elizabeth Jenkins appeals the district court’s partial grant of a motion to dismiss and entry of summary judgment for Defendants

- Appellees Grant Thornton LLP (GT); Grant Thornton LLP Health and Welfare Benefit s Plan (the Health Plan); and Grant Thornton LLP Employees’ Ret irement Plan (the Pension Plan) . Jenkins, proceeding pro se, filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. , to

r ecover long

- term disabi lity benefits she believes are due to her under the Health Plan, retirement benefits she believes are due to her under the Pension Plan, and document penalties for GT’s alleged failure to provide her with the plan documents she requested. Additionally, Je nkins seeks equitable relief on behalf of the Health Plan for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On appeal, Jenkins argues that the district court: (1) erred in dismissing several counts of her amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) abused its discretion in denying her motion to quash certain subpoenas and in issuing discovery sanctions against her; and (3) erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After review ing the record and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the district court did not commit rev ersible error as to any issue.
AFFIRM ED . Case: 14-15695 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 2 of 2
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 Boston Life Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth L. Rice, Jr., Chief Financial 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:



| | 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/    KENNETH L. RICE,
JR.Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.Executive Vice President Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer




Date: November 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.02

DEER VALLEY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of Deer Valley Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Charles G. Masters, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/    Charles G. Masters     
|Charles G. Masters            
|Acting Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2008
EXHIBIT 4

Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 17 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 18 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 19 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 20 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 21 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 22 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 23 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 24 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 25 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 26 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-3 Filed 03/05/21 Page 27 of 27
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2630 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2630

 To require a report from the Comptroller General of the United States 
 regarding implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
                     1986, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2013

 Mr. Barletta introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require a report from the Comptroller General of the United States 
 regarding implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
                     1986, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``1986 Amnesty Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. GAO REPORT.

    Not later than the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit 
to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee on Homeland 
Security of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the 
implementation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 that 
includes information on the following:
            (1) What employer requirements were implemented.
            (2) How the Federal Government enforces the laws that 
        prohibit hiring aliens who were unlawfully present in the 
        United States or unauthorized to work in the United States.
            (3) How many individuals were denied employment.
            (4) Were any employers sanctioned.
            (5) What border enforcement mechanisms were enhanced to 
        prevent an increase of illegal immigration.
            (6) How visa overstay issues were addressed.
            (7) The added cost to society through increased social 
        benefits provided to aliens who were unlawfully present in the 
        United States.
            (8) How implementation of the Act impacted United States 
        workers, including any impact on wages of workers by industry 
        sector and on the unemployment rate.
            (9) The cost of implementation of the Act.
            (10) The rates of fraud that took place as a result of the 
        Act, including the controls and mechanisms implemented to 
        address and prevent illegal immigrants from using fraudulent 
        documents to claim amnesty.
            (11) How could similar incidents be prevented in any future 
        program to provide for legalization of presence.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

Pandemonium Inc v Northcrest Development LLC

Docket No. 350526

LC No. 18-012741-CB

Amy Ronayne Krause 

Presiding Judge

Michael J. Riordan 

Colleen A. O’Brien 

Judges

The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's opinion issued June 3, 2021, 

is hereby VACATED. A new opinion is attached to this order. 

_______________________________

Presiding Judge
EXHIBIT P 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-16 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 3
	




	








 !"# $%&"'(

)*


+,-.-/0121345-.67-6818.25-91.-08.:;8:461.-928-<1841;4.4625:.=01>?@ABCDEFGH1I4.-1<-82:90

JJKLMNOPQKRS O[J TUVWX V YZRJ

ZKLMNOPJKQS O V\]WX V Y^M^

ZKRMNOPSKRL O ]_]X ] Y^JS

`KMSNOPQKQS O V\a_X V Y`b^

c.:;-012.-1;=..-689d18de:;291f4.1d4=.18.:eH g(

ZKRMNOPbKQJ O ]]VVX ] Y^JZ

ZKMMNOP`KR` O ]aThX ] Y^LM

ZKLMNOPZKLM O ]V_X ] Y^RQ

`KSMNOP`KLS O ]_TWX ] Y``J

ZKRM OPLKRM O[J ]h_X V YJiMSJ

QKLM OPJKMM O[J ]ha_X V YJiMZM

j4=6<18.:e E1e200-63-. k;4647d l84;m,497 l261n.26;:0;4 l28o1p451qE r-<o1p451qs

t( u'"( Ngv( ! wx( y'vv!v"'( O'

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-16 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 3 uvv
	



  

!"#$%"$

&
"$
 '(' )'*

+""!,"-.


/$!%"$ '( )'01*

2+"
3/$
"%"$

&
"$
 56 57 56 '( )4''*

89:;<9;= >?<:@AB ><AA=:CB

DE?<@FG??;H= IAJK9CBFLFM=ANO P=HQF>=:@=AF9:RF>?:O<N=AFS:T?AN9@J?:

UVWX

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-16 Filed 11/05/20 Page 3 of 3 YJ;:FJ:
#### ERNEST v. MOORE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 13, 1953.

Henry J. Burt, Jr., Louisville, for appellant.

Cohen & Jenkins, Louisville, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

Morris Ernest appeals from a judgment against him in the amount of $750, in fa*348vor of O-wen Moore, for personal injuries sustained by Moore when he scratched or cut his leg on a nail sticking out of a lettuce crate on the sidewalk in front of Ernest’s produce market in Louisville.

The sole contention of the appellant is that the evidence does not support a judgment against him personally, because it does not establish that he, rather than one of the employes of the market, was responsible for the position and condition of the lettuce crate. Liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for negligence of one of the employes of the market, could not be imposed upon Ernest personally, because his business was incorporated.

Both Moore and his son testified positively that they saw Ernest put the lettuce crate out on the sidewalk, remove the lid with a hammer, and pound some of the nails with the hammer. Moore further testified that immediately after the accident Ernest said that he personally had pounded down the nails in the crate. Another witness testified that he saw Ernest putting out lettuce crates that morning, and removing the top from a crate immediately before the accident, but he would not say positively that he saw Ernest handling the particular crate that caused the injury.

Obviously, this evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Ernest individually committed the alleged negligent act. The argument of the appellant seems to be that the testimony of Moore and his witnesses was so discredited on cross-examination as to destroy its probative force.

The trial in question was the third trial of the case, the first trial having resulted in a mistrial, and the verdict on the second trial having been set aside as excessive. On cross-examination of Moore and his witnesses the appellant read excerpts from their testimony on the previous trials, in an effort to show that in their previous testimony they said they did not know whether Ernest or one of the employes of the market had put out the crate and removed its top. The witnesses admitted giving the testimony, but endeavored to explain that their lack of knowledge as to who was handling the crates referred to activities at a time prior to the accident, when Moore and his son had passed Ernest’s market on their way to another market.

While we think that the cross-examination did bring out material contradictions in the testimony of Moore and his witnesses, their credibility was for the jury, and their testimony cannot be entirely discarded fnerely because of the contradictions. Wilhoit v. Cundiff, 291 Ky. 99, 163 S.W. 2d 280; Southern Oxygen Co. v. Martin, 291 Ky. 238, 163 S.W.2d 459; Short Way Lines v. Sutton’s Adm’r, 291 Ky. 541, 164 S.W.2d 809.

The judgment is affirmed.
DENY; and Opinion Filed October 14, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01350-CV

IN RE TODD PRUETT, Relator

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-014518

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Lewis

Relator contends the trial judge erred in granting a motion to dismiss. The facts and 

issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record 

before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

131350F.P05

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
**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 Form 10-QSB of Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical
      Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Peiyi Tian, Principal Accounting 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 the best of my knowledge
      and belief:





(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/
      Peiyi Tian**


Peiyi
      Tian


Principal
      Accounting Officer




November 19,
      2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Ultra-Deepwater 
Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced 
in the Federal Register.

DATES: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. (EDT).

ADDRESSES: IBM, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW., Suite 1500, Washington, 
DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 
202-586-5600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Ultra-Deepwater 
Advisory Committee is to provide advice on development and 
implementation of programs related to ultra-deepwater architecture and 
technology to the Secretary of Energy and provide comments and 
recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Annual Plan 
per requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title IX, Subtitle 
J, Section 999D.

Tentative Agenda

10:30 a.m. Registration.
11 a.m. Welcome and Roll Call; Opening Remarks by the Committee Chair; 
Report by the Editing Subcommittee; Facilitated Discussion by the 
Members regarding Final Report; Approval of Committee Final Report.
12:45 p.m. Public Comments, if any.
1 p.m. Adjourn.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The 
Designated Federal Officer and the Chairman of the Committee will lead 
the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to 
file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either 
before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements 
regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena 
Melchert at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make 
your request for an oral statement at least two business days prior to 
the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the 
presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 3 minute 
rule.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Elena 
Melchert's office at the address or phone number listed above.

    Issued at Washington, DC on March 18, 2011.
LaTanya Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-6949 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### HINSON v. STATE.

No. 24067.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1948.

Reynold M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was given a five year sentence in the penitentiary on a conviction for sodomy.

It will not be necessary to discuss the repulsive evidence in the case. A small boy was involved. Under his statement of what occurred he is an accomplice. His testimony was not corroborated by any fact or circumstance, so far as proof of the corpus delicti is concerned. To the contrary, two policemen to whom the matter was first reported by the boy’s father quoted the lad as giving statements contradictory to that testified to by him on the witness stand. According to the statement which he made to the two policemen, the accused had attempted to commit the offense but the boy said he ran away before it was committed. He contradicted himself on .further material matters.

The law requires that the evidence of an accomplice be corroborated and the instant case is a good example for the necessity that it be done. While the accused did not acquit himself in a commendable manner as a witness, he did produce several witnesses who testified to his good reputation. If we eliminate the evidence which the accomplice witness gave there is nothing that would cast even a suspicion that appellant had committed the offense charged.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, J.R. MCFARLANE, G.G. GERDING

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

THOMAS J. MCLAUGHLIN II

SERGEANT (E-5), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400040

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 3 October 2013.

Military Judge: LtCol C.M. Greer, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, Training Command, 

Quantico, VA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol M.E. Sayegh, 

USMC.

For Appellant: LtCol Richard Belliss, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

30 April 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of J.A.S., a juvenile, * From the Juvenile Court

of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 4502-J.

No. 11-13-00328-CV * March 5, 2015

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 99.6





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 OPTI Canada Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher Slubicki, President 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 the best of my 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.






By:
(signed) Christopher SlubickiChristopher Slubicki
President and Chief Executive Officer





March 15, 2010