alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50914 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO JAIMES-ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-96-CR-134-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - June 30, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco Jaimes-Arroyo appeals his conviction for conspiracy to enter a false claim to United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Jaimes has failed to establish that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was insufficient to support his conviction. See United States v. Bell , 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds , 462 U.S. 356 (1983); see also United States v. Henry , 604 F.2d 908, 916 (5th Cir.No. 97-50914 -2- 1979)(presentation of a false birth certificate by an alien as evidence of asserted citizenship constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911); United States v. Harrell , 894 F.2d 120, 126-27 (5th Cir. 1990)(Government need not negate possibility of naturalization to establish lack of United States citizenship). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jaimes’ discovery request and his motion for a continuance in order to subpoena a witness who was outside of the United States.
See United States v. Rodriguez , 15 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 1994). The same is true of the testimony Jaimes sought to elicit on cross-examination of Agent Trevino. See United States v. Duncan , 919 F.2d 981, 988 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Gordon , 780 F.2d 1165, 1175-76 (5th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
^0 . Ivn^a RECEIVED IN s ^ \t_*»we^ COURTOFCRfPALAPPEALS * o? 

### M FILED IN d--^V wfe*\s AUG 13 2015 COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

### TVii 5V*te. oV Toil* AU6 13 2915 ^csVooAeA AbelAcosta, Clerk Abel Acosta, Clerk To TVie \WjcW»Ac. "3uA&fcb <$c S&A CjauA •.



## L^eb^o^ W<\vS> ^^ &£s^\ &Jr\\vHSe.c <*A fete* "W cooW Voc e*W^

3L 

## £S> 13<MW^ \CtiWX o^V\ oia^ vjWvcitN Xi> (Se^W\te^ <^.j&vSW- eteVa^c4^^ b\«\s c\<fc -iAWc^^ dt ^e XaU^ocx uitaV fcM 33 > SatoJ Mu«,M, ttnft MivWWa
i^K\ Vcowv ^W. a^;4s0v p&/<bM ^«v<x\;a^. . 

### \t«?c ^ W Waco&^ fee ^ee^o^Vv^ \beUe . ^W- CousV u>s<£cxl_ 3SL - 

### US, U&U^ W ^V\ «3&^ 0sW<^ Xb (Se^W><^ £,&\S)^ eiC^^
Exhibit 23.1

The
Board of Directors
J. Crew Group, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the previously filed registration statement No. 333-60658 on Form S-8 of J. Crew,
Group Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 25, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of J. Crew Group, Inc and subsidiaries as of January 31,
2004 and February 1, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in stockholders' deficit for each of the years in the three-year period
ended January 31, 2004, and the related schedule, which report appears in the Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2004 of J. Crew Group, Inc. Our
report reflects adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity".

New
York, New York
April 29, 2004

---
EXHIBIT
32.A
 
 
 
 
 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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2008, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the “Company”)
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James C. Yardley, Chairman of the Board and President,
certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.






/s/ James C.
      YardleyJames
      C. YardleyChairman
      of the Board and President(Principal
      Executive Officer)Tennessee
      Gas Pipeline CompanyNovember
      7, 2008
























A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### BUCHOZ v. KLEIN et al.

No. A-294.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 30, 1944.

Cunningham, Ward & Cunningham and R. E. Cunningham, all of El Paso, for plaintiff in error.

J. H. McBroom, of El Paso, for defendants in error.

CRITZ, Justice.

This suit was filed in the District Court of El Paso County, Texas, by N. G. Buchoz against William Klein, John Klein, and Joseph Sonnenberg, to recover the sum of $1300, alleged by Buchoz to be due him by Klein et al. as a broker’s commission for finding a purchaser ready, willing, and able to purchase certain real property belonging to Klein et al. Buchoz’s cause of action is based upon a written contract alleged to have been executed by Klein et al. by one A. L. Carlton as their duly authorized agent. In the alternative Buchoz sued Carlton on the theory that he represented that he had authority from Klein et al. to sign the contract sued on, and therefore, if Carlton had no such authority, he was liable personally for the broker’s commission here involved. Trial in the district court, with the aid of a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for Buchoz against Klein et al. No judgment was rendered against Carlton. On appeal by Klein et al. this judgment was reversed by the El Paso Court of Civil Appeals, and the entire cause remanded to the district court for a new trial.

As already stated, Buchoz’s cause of action is based upon a written contract alleged to have been executed by Klein et al. by Carlton as their duly authorized agent. Klein et al. duly denied that they had executed such contract, or that they had authorized Carlton to execute it for them. No instrument authorizing Carlton to execute this contract for Klein et al. is shown or even contended to have ever existed. We have read the entire statement of facts, including all exhibits, and we agree with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that this record contains no evidence showing that Carlton had authority from Klein et al. to execute the contract made the basis of this suit. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals states the substance of .the evidence, and no good purpose would be served by repeating it here. Buchoz based his cause of action on the theory that Carlton had authority from Klein et al. to execute this contract in their name. Under .the record we have recited, the burden was on Buchoz to prove Carlton’s authority by preponderance of the evidence. The law does not presume agency, and he who alleges it has the burden of proving it. 2 Tex.Jur., p. 499, § 103, and authorities there cited.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, which reverses the judgment of the district court and remands this cause to the district court for a new trial, is affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7439

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID HILL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00191

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : May 25, 2023 Decided: May 31, 2023

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7439 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: David Hill, a federal inmate, appeals the district cou rt’s order issuing a prefiling injunction in his criminal proceeding . Upon review of the record in conjunction with the arguments pressed on appeal, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction. See Cromer v. Kraft Fo ods N. Am., Inc. , 390 F.3d 812, 817

- 18 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review and providing four

- factor test). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Hill , No. 1:01

- cr - 00191

- CMH

- 1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2022). We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7439 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.8

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 Paramount Energy Trust (the Trust) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Susan L. Riddell Rose, President and Chief Executive Officer of Paramount Energy Operating Corp., who performs the same function for the Trust, 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:  /s/ Susan L. Riddell Rose

Susan L. Riddell Rose
President and Chief Executive Officer of Paramount Energy Operating Corp.

March 11, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 61333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26600]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2445]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceeding

October 12, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and 
published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this 
document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, ITC, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these 
petitions must be filed by November 1, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of 
the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition 
must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have 
expired.
    Subject: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (CC Docket 
No. 96-45), Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an 
Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26600 Filed 10-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Exhibit 32.1  Rival Technologies Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned officer of Rival Technologies Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date:   July 2, 2007/s/ Robin J. Harvey
Robin J. Harvey
Principal Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Cancer Institute, November 6, 2000, 9:30 a.m. to November 6, 2000, 11 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Building 31, Room 11A10, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 5, 2000, 65FR59453.                

The meeting will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: October 11, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-26863  Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 32

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Michael Benstock     
|Michael Benstock         
|Chief Executive Officer  
|                         
|/s/ Andrew D. Demott, Jr.
|Andrew D. Demott, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer  
|                         
|Date: May 10, 2007
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1666

JAMES EDWARD MCCONNELL; KIM MCCONNELL , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. WATAUGA COUNTY; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES WATAUGA COUNTY; THOMAS HUGHES; JENNIFER SMITH; JESSICA WINEBARGER; CHAD SLAGLE; LEN D. HAGAMAN; WATAUGA COUNTY SHERIFF ’ S DEPARTMENT; JASKA H. ROMINGER; WESTERN SURETY COMPANY , Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Stat esville

. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv - 00195

- MOC

- DCK )

Submitted : January 13, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William E

. Moore, Jr. , GRAY, LAYTON, KERSH, SOLOMON, FURR & SMITH, PA , Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellants. Bradley O. Wood , WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina , for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Edward McConnell and Kim McConnell appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on their civil action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 ( 201 8 ), and related state

- law claims arising from the arrest and prosecution of James McConnell on state criminal charges of which he was later acquitted. The McConnells also appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying their motion to compel and granting one of the defendant’s motion for a protective order. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by th e district court. McConnell v. Watauga Cty

. , No. 5:17

-

cv - 00195

- MOC

- DCK (W.D.N.C. May 9, 2019; May 3 1 , 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
# S **upreme C**  **ourt of**  **T exas** 

══════════ No. 23

- 0 444

══════════
J

- W Power Company , Petitioner ,

v
. Frio County Appraisal District , Respondent

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas

═══════════════════════════ ══ ══════════
PER CURIAM Justice Young did not participate in the decision.
The petition for review is granted. Without hearing oral argument, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 59.1, the court of appeals’ judgment is reversed in light of J

- W Power Co. v. Sterling County Appraisal District , ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 2869325 (Tex. June 7, 2024). The case is remanded to the court of appeals to consider issues it did not reach.

OPIN ION DELIVERED: June 21, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2842 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2842

 To create competition in the Department of Agriculture's canned tuna 
    purchasing program to strengthen the Department's buying power, 
    increase the availability of canned tuna to school lunch, child 
nutrition, and other Federal nutrition programs, and create jobs in the 
                       domestic canning industry.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2013

  Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California (for herself, Mr. LoBiondo, Mrs. 
Napolitano, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Issa, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Barrow of 
 Georgia, and Mr. Peters of California) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To create competition in the Department of Agriculture's canned tuna 
    purchasing program to strengthen the Department's buying power, 
    increase the availability of canned tuna to school lunch, child 
nutrition, and other Federal nutrition programs, and create jobs in the 
                       domestic canning industry.

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVED COMPETITION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CANNED 
              TUNA PURCHASING PROGRAM.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall revise the Agricultural Marketing Service Master 
Solicitation and Supplement specifications for the purchase of canned 
tuna to require that--
            (1) all such tuna be landed by United States flagged 
        fishing vessels;
            (2) not less than 75 percent of the value of such tuna be 
        produced in the United States; and
            (3) all such tuna be canned in the United States, including 
        the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 
        Northern Mariana Islands, or territories or possessions of the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.; 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.6:20-cv-00533-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF THE FILING OF A 

PETITION FOR INTER-PARTES REVIEW 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceeding – Patent Case (“Order Governing 

Proceeding”), namely General Issue No. 6, Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos 

Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) hereby provides notice that defendant Huawei 

Technology Co, Ltd. filed a petition requesting inter-partes review of the patent in-suit, U.S. Patent 

No. 6,882,627, on November 30, 2020. See IPR2021-00222. Based on the file accord date of 

December 9, 2020, the expected time for an institution decision is June 9, 2021. If instituted, the 

expected time for a final written decision is June 9, 2022.

Dated: December 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

James L. Etheridge

Texas Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas Bar No. 24065671

Travis L. Richins

Texas Bar No. 24061296

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 36 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Southlake, TX 76092

Tel.: (817) 470-7249

Fax: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this December 14, 2020, with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

ECF system.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 36 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2