alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40721

Summary Calendar

 

CURTIS LEON THOMAS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE TEXAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-27

- - - - - - - - - -

December 17, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curtis Leon Thomas, #660149, appeals the dismissal of his

complaint as frivolous. Assuming Thomas had a constitutional

right not to have his mail delivered to or read by another

inmate, at most, Thomas has alleged negligence in the handling of

his mail. Negligence is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). The district

court did not err in dismissing Thomas’ suit on the basis that
No. 96-40721

- 2 -

the due process clause is not implicated by a state official’s

negligent act causing unintended loss of or injury to life,

liberty, or property. This appeal is frivolous. 

We caution Thomas that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Thomas is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.
Santa Ana, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to the Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.
2006 Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated July 13, 2007, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Integrated Healthcare
Holdings, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended March 31, 2007.


                                               /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                               ---------------------------------
Santa Ana, California
July 13, 2007
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

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

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

 April 1, 2015

t0325

Order 

Clerk

April 1, 2015

149425

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149425

COA: 308409

Wayne CC: 11-008512-FC

EMAD SAGBAN ALZUBAIDY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 15, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

Calendar No. 589 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3085 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN HERBERT JOHNSON MEMORIAL POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 3349 West 111th Street in Chi7 cago, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cap8 tain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3085 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain Herbert 

5 Johnson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 589 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3085 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postson Memorial Post Office Building’’. Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘Captain Herbert John- al Service located at 3349 West 111th Street in 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SOUTHBANC SHARES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,277
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,970
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     97,234
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        219,896
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 362,529
<DEPOSITS>                                     207,791
<SHORT-TERM>                                    25,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,157
<LONG-TERM>                                     51,174
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,508
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 362,529
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,275
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,662
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,937
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,902
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,256
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,681
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      606
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 177
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,811
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,811
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.90
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,175
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    89
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,886
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      174
<RECOVERIES>                                        55
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,374
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,374
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1396

J.J., a minor, by her parents and next

friends, G.J. and J.A.; J.A.; G.J.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY; JERRY

D. WEAST, in his official capacity as

Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA02-491-PJM)

Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 18, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeanne Asherman, ASHERMAN LAW & MEDIATION OFFICE, Silver Spring,

Maryland, for Appellants. Edmund W. Law, Zvi Greismann, Rockville,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

J.J., a disabled child, by and through her parents,

appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in

favor of the Defendants on her complaint filed pursuant to the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C.

§ 1400 et seq. (2000), as well as the district court’s order

denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

J.J. v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery Co., No. CA-02-491-PJM (D. Md.

Mar. 26, 2003 & Feb. 10, 2003). Given this disposition, we also

deny counsel’s motions to withdraw from representation and for the

appointment of new counsel. We grant the Appellees’ motion to

submit this appeal on the briefs, and we dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
exv10w2x3yxdy



 






EXHIBIT
10.2(3)(d)




BELO [1995] [2000] EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

AWARD NOTIFICATION




Participant:




Date of Grant:



Under the terms of the Belo Executive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), you have been granted the
following awards. All awards are effective on the Date of Grant set forth above and are subject to
the applicable terms and conditions of the Plan, which are incorporated herein by reference. Your
long-term incentive awards are described below.





	 	1.	 	Stock Options





	 	 	 
	No. of shares:

	 	___ shares of Belo Series B Common Stock
	 
	 	 
	Option exercise

	$	___ per share
	price:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Vesting and exercise

	 	___ shares on and after [40% one year from grant date]
	dates:

	 	___ shares on and after [30% two years from grant date]
	 

	 	___ shares on and after [30% three years from grant date]
	 
	 	 
	Expiration date:

	 	The options will expire on, and may not be exercised after, [ten years from grant date]







Your right, if any, to exercise vested and unvested stock options upon your termination of
employment is set forth in the termination guidelines attached as Appendix A to this Award
Notification.




	 	2.	 	Change in Control






In the event of a Change in Control as defined in the Plan, all unvested stock options will
vest and become exercisable immediately.



 









 





Belo Executive Compensation Plan Award Notification

Appendix A

Termination Guidelines for Stock Options



The following guidelines will determine the effect of a Participant’s termination of employment on
the Participant’s outstanding stock options. For purposes of these Guidelines, a year of service
will be determined in the same manner as a year of service under the Belo Savings Plan as amended
from time to time.




	 	 	 
	Termination Reason	 	Action
	 
	 	 
	Voluntary resignation

	 	All options,
unvested and
vested, are
forfeited
immediately
	 
	 	 
	Discharge for cause 1

	 	All options,
unvested and
vested, are
forfeited
immediately
	 
	 	 
	Retirement 2, Death or Long-Term Disability

	 	Vesting is
accelerated and
options remain
exercisable for
original term of
the option.
	 
	 	 
	Termination Reason: Discharge without cause

	 	Action
	 
	 	 
	Executive officers, general managers and heads of
operating units

	 	Unvested options
are forfeited
immediately.
Vested options
remain exercisable
for one year from
date of
termination.
	 
	 	 
	Participants with 10 or more years of service

	 	Unvested options
are forfeited
immediately.
Vested options
remain exercisable
for one year from
date of
termination.
	 
	 	 
	Participants with more than 5 but less than 10 years
of service

	 	Unvested options
are forfeited
immediately.
Vested options
remain exercisable
for six months from
date of
termination.
	 
	 	 
	Participants with 5 or fewer years of service

	 	Unvested options
are forfeited
immediately.
Vested options
remain exercisable
for three months
from date of
termination.








 




			
	 	1	Cause is determined by the Compensation Committee.
	 
	 	2	Retirement is defined as at least age 55 with 3 or more years of service.






2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION S

Appellate case name: J arvis Marquis Tillman v . The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 098

- CR & 01

- 1 9

- 00 099

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 604096 & 1580017

Trial court: 185 th District Court of Harris County

On January 29, 2019

, appellant, Jarvis Marquis Tillman, filed a combined notice of appeal from th e January 22, 2019 judgment s of conviction after he pleaded guilty to the third

- degree felony offense of harassment of a public servant , in trial court cause number 1604096, and to the state

- jail felony offense of theft <$2,500, but with two or more prior convictions, in trial court cause number 1580017, and the trial court assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement in each case, to be served concurrently with each other

. The Clerk of this Court’s April 23, 2019 letter notified appellant’s appointed counsel, Richard K. Oliver, that his extension s w ere granted to file his brief s until July 17, 2019, with no further extensions

, in both the 01

- 1 9

- 00 098

- CR and 01

- 19

- 00 0 99

- CR case s

. However, on June 11 and 13 , 2019, t h e Clerk of thi s Court received two letter

motion s from the pro se a ppellant seeking to withdraw both appeal s , but t hey w ere not signed by counsel. The Clerk of this Court is directed to file appellant’s letter s as pro se letter

- motion s to dismiss. Under Rule 42.2(a), any voluntary motion to dismiss in a criminal appeal must contain both the signature of appellant’s counsel and the appellant, and it must be filed in duplicate with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, t he Court DEN IES appellant’s pro se letter

- motion s to dismiss th e s e appeal s without prejudice to refiling by appellant’s counsel , Richard K. Oliver, because

t hey w ere neither signed by counsel nor filed in duplicate. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). Th is Court will consider compliant motion s to dismiss filed by appellant’s counsel , Richard K. Oliver, who is directed to contact the appellant regarding his letter

- motion s to dismiss

.

It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: __ June 25, 2019

___
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, November 17, 2000.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference Room.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00-27600  Filed 10-23-00; 4:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
> 
**Exhibit 32**

**      WrittenStatement of the Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer**
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 
        Solelyfor the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer of Teltronics, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify,based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ EWEN R. CAMERON                    Ewen R. CameronChief ExecutiveOfficer 

/s/ RUSSELL R. LEE III                        Russell R. Lee IIIChief FinancialOfficer 

Date:   August 15, 2005
**Exhibit 13.1**

** **

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Tricom, S.A. (the “Company”) for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Hector CastroNoboa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|                    | /s/ HECTOR CASTRO NOBOA |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Dated: October 29, 2007 | Hector Castro Noboa     |   |
|                    | Chief Executive 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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of issuance of advisory circular. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 25,24, Sustained Engine Imbalance. This AC sets forth an acceptable means, but not the only means, of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 25 related to the aircraft design for sustained engine rotor imbalance for transport category airplanes. Like all ACs, it is not regulatory but is to provide guidance for applicants in demonstrating compliance with the objective safety standards set forth in the rule.

# DATES:

Advisory Circular 25.24 was issued by the Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, ANM-100, on August 2, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

*How to Obtain Copies.*                         A copy may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, DOT Warehouse, SVC-121.23, 3341Q 75th Ave., Landover, MD 20785, telephone 301-322-5377, or faxing your request to the warehouse at 301-386-5394. This AC can be found and downloaded from the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/​avr/​air/​airhome.htm, at the link titled “Advisory Circulars.”                     

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 4, 2000.

Dorenda D. Baker,

Acting Manager Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00-27448  Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30369

Conference Calendar

 

CHAD LIGHTFOOT ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

CHAD LIGHTFOOT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2038

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louisiana prisoner Chad Lightfoot, #301162, appeals from the

grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his civil rights

action. Lightfoot contends that the district court erred by

denying his motion for class certification; erred by denying his

motion for a default judgment against defendant Richard Stalder;
No. 96-30369

- 2 -

erred by denying his motion for appointment of an expert witness;

and erred by granting summary judgment for the defendants.

The denial of Lightfoot’s motion for class certification was

not an abuse of discretion. Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d

465, 470 (5th Cir. 1992). Nor was the denial of his motion for a

default judgment; Stalder filed an answer within two weeks after

the entry of default and one day before Lightfoot’s motion for a

default judgment was filed. See Thomas v. Kipperman, 846 f.2d

1009, 1011 (5th Cir. 1988). Nor was the denial of Lightfoot’s

motion for appointment of an expert witness an abuse of

discretion. See Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1006 (5th Cir.

1977).

Regarding the grant of summary judgment, Lightfoot does not

argue his underlying claims on their merits; nor does he link the

evidence he provided in the district court to any of those

claims. He has failed to brief whether the district court erred

by granting summary judgment for the defendants. Grant v.

Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995).

Lightfoot’s appeal is frivolous. We previously warned

Lightfoot that frivolous appeals could result in sanctions

against him. Lightfoot v. Bienvenu, No. 94-CV-411, slip op. at 3

(5th Cir. Aug. 23, 1994). Accordingly, Lightfoot is barred from

filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil appeal in this court

without the prior written approval of an active judge of this

court. Further he is BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma
No. 96-30369

- 3 -

pauperis, civil pleading in any court which is subject to this

court’s jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a

judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the clerks

of all federal district courts subject to the jurisdiction of

this court are directed to return to Lightfoot, unfiled, any

attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.