alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

F/R 550, LLC, a Florida limited liability ) 

company; and F/R 3329, LLC, a Florida ) 

limited liability company, ) 

 ) 

 Appellants/Cross-Appellees, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-4064 

 ) 

NATIONAL AUTO SERVICE CENTERS, ) 

INC., a Florida corporation; NATIONAL ) 

AUTO PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida ) 

corporation; LEONARD D. LEVIN, ) 

individually; DURANT HOLDINGS, LLC; ) 

and BEDFORD INVESTMENTS, LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed March 30, 2016. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 

from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; 

Jack Day, Judge. 

Courtney L. Fernald and Leonard S. 

Englander of Englander Fischer, St. 

Petersburg, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. 

Stephen O. Cole and Nancy S. Paikoff of 

MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen, 

Clearwater, and Michael J. Stanton of 

Stanton Cronin Law Group, PL, Tampa, 

for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 
- 2 - 

SALARIO, Judge. 

 In view of our disposition of companion case 2D14-3632, the partial final 

judgment on appeal in this case is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court as 

stated in our opinion in 2D14-3632. 

 Reversed and remanded. 

VILLANTI, C.J., and LUCAS, J., Concur.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 1, 2012 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

DARRYL L. HINTON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. DONNA BOWERS, in her personal capacity; JANET DOWLING, in her personal capacity, Defendants - Appellees. No. 11-6259 (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00192-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before LUCERO , ANDERSON , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.
Darryl Hinton, an Oklahoma state inmate, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against two prison officials who allegedly violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed Mr. Hinton’s claims because he failed to exhaust the Oklahoma Department of Corrections’s (ODOC) grievance

* After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.process as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Mr. Hinton now appeals. After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that Mr. Hinton failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Although Mr. Hinton filed several grievances, these were all returned unanswered because of noncompliance with the ODOC’s grievance rules. Despite being given the opportunity to do so, Mr. Hinton never appropriately refiled any of these grievances, and this is enough to bar his claims under the PLRA. See Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (“[T]o properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners must ‘complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.’”) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006)). Neither can we accept Mr. Hinton’s alternative argument on appeal — that failure to exhaust administrative grievance procedures is not an affirmative defense under the PLRA. It’s true that in Steele v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 355 F.3d 1204, 1209-10 (10th Cir. 2003), we held that failure to exhaust is not an affirmative defense, but that’s only because we concluded it is an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim that must be pleaded in the complaint. Even this is beside the point, though. The Supreme Court has since overturned Steele , and it’s now quite clear that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense in § 1983 cases, like this one, covered by the PLRA. See Jones , 549 U.S. at 216-17.

- 2 -The district court’s dismissal of Mr. Hinton’s § 1983 claims is affirmed. We grant Mr. Hinton’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees and remind him that he must continue making partial payments until the entire filing fee is paid in full.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge

- 3 -
#### MANN v. STATE.

No. 23762.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1947.

EL H. Shelton and Wright Stubbs, both of Austin, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $100 and three months in jail; by a jury in Travis County, upon a charge of procuring.

Only one person'testified to the facts upon which conviction was had. She said she lived in Philadelphia and had been in Texas for some time, “working” in various hotels. As she was evicted from one hotel, in the City of Austin, the appellant asked her to “work” for him. He secured a hotel room and instructed her where to go and the charge to make. He went with her to a particular room at another hotel in which two men were registered. Another young woman accompanied them. His purpose in doing so was to have her meet a man with whom she was to have sexual intercouse for pay. He had instructed her to ask $10, but to take $5. All of the money which she was to get was to be brought to him. During the three or four days in which she was engaged in this undertaking she collected $35 and gave him some $25 to $27 of the money. He paid for her room and her meals.

There are no bills of exception in the record and no contention that the evidence is insufficient other than that it becomes so because, as appellant contends, the witness was an accomplice and her testimony was not corroborated. This we find to be the state of the.record and the only question presented is whether or not it is necessary under the law, to support a conviction, that her testimony be corroborated.

We have two lines of decisions in the State on this subject, as noted in the case of Porter v. State, 141 Tex. Cr.R. 417, 148 S.W.2d 202. We think the opinion in that case sufficiently discusses these cases and overrules those in conflict with it. The Porter opinion decides the case now before us contrary to appellant’s contention. He made the approach and, in doing so committed the. offense. Denman v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 256, 178 S.W. 332. What took place thereafter was immaterial.

*986' The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

DAVIDSON, Judge.

We remain of the opinion that under the facts here presented, the female was not an accomplice and that the jury was authorized to convict, upon her testimony alone. Denman v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 179 S.W. 120.

Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 125 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 243
**Washington Metropolitan**  **Area Transit Authority**



## 7000 Series Rail Car
Accessibility F ea tur es

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

 Mor e (25%) bar s/handholds at door and thr ough tr ain than 6000 series car  Ve rtical poles at each seat to help people s ta nd up
- seat backs also ha ve handholds/bar s)  Priv acy scr een at priority seating  4 priority seats for people with disabilities and senior s  2 designated wheelchair parking ar eas at middle door with U shaped grab bar including specially color ed flooring

## 7000 Series Car

 Incr eased aisle width fr om 32" to 34" to accommodate wheelchair users  Emergency call butto ns at both ends and cen te r of
car  Tw o ceiling moun te d displa ys p ro viding line, s tat ion and des tination information  Fo ur w all moun te d displa ys p ro viding line, stat ion and des tination information Automated stat ion announcemen ts  Re ta ined priority seating signage consis te ntw ith other car series  Re ta ined platform t o car floor g ap r educers  Wo rd ing of all des tination signs will be of the same color; the bars a t the side of the wor ding will indicate line color  Impr ovements to car P A syste m 

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

 Re moved floor t o ceiling s ta nchions at door s consis te ntw ith 6000 series car  Vin yl seat covers  Non

- slip vin yl floor s

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car

## 7000 Series Car
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Paul A. Maleh, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CRA International, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: February 10, 2011

By:

/s/ PAUL A. MALEH Paul A. Maleh
President and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 268

To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain

from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the

Sea Treaty.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 19, 1994

Mr. FIELDS of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Congress that the United States

should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement

relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Whereas many of the minerals underlying the seabed have

strategic and military importance to the United States;

Whereas the Law of the Sea Treaty will come into force on

November 16, 1994, having been ratified to date by

sixty-one countries, none of which is industrialized;

Whereas a new seabed mining agreement amending the Law

of the Sea Treaty will be open for signature on July 29,

1994, and the United States will sign the agreement;

Whereas the Law of the Sea Treaty, even as amended, continues to discriminate against the United States and our

industrialized allies, is antithetical to business interests
2

HCON 268 IH

and will discourage United States investment in seabed

mining;

Whereas signature of the agreement will bind the United

States provisionally to the seabed mining agreement and

portions of the Law of the Sea Treaty for up to four

years, even absent Senate ratification of the agreement

and the Law of the Sea Treaty;

Whereas this provisional application will force the United

States to finance 25 percent of the operations of the

large bureaucracy created by the Treaty, including the

International Seabed Authority, which will eventually

support a direct competitor to United States’ and private

mining interests, and distribute revenues from seabed

mining to developing countries and groups of national

liberation;

Whereas provisional application will coerce United States seabed miners to participate in the regime by filing mining

claims and paying quarter million dollar exploration and

exploitation application fees to the International Seabed

Authority;

Whereas the plain language of the State Department Basic

Authorities Act of 1956 prohibits the participation by the

United States in an international organization and other

international activities for which provision has not been

made by any treaty for longer than one year without approval of Congress; and

Whereas possible ultimate failure by the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty will cause chaos for the

United States seabed mining industry: Now, therefore,

be it
3

HCON 268 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 United States should refrain from signing the seabed min4 ing agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2010 (the Report), I, Amit S. Dang, 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:



(1)     The Report filed by the Company 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 on the dates and for the periods presented therein.





HEPALIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: April 29, 2010
     
     By:
     /s/ Amit S. DangAmit S. Dang
President, Chief Executive Officer,Principal Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer




This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not 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, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.










---
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



I, Carol L. Houle, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Provident Bancorp, Inc.; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 28, 2016 | /s/ Carol L. Houle                                  
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     | Carol L. Houle                                      
|                     | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0518

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT CRAIG BRITZIUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 25, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2022

04/18/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0518
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

JONATHAN WILLIAMS (l),

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

JONATHAN WILLIAMS (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997),

has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered aplea of guilty to Count 3 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining JONATHAN WILLIAMS (l) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in

Rule I 1, I detennined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) charged is supported by

an independent basis in fact containing each of the essentialelements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea

of guilty be accepted, and that JONATHAN WILLIAMS (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. $ 922(gXl) and924(a)(2)

Possy'ssion of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the

offef se by the district judge.

The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 31a3(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

I The Government does not oppose release.

n The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

n I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under $ 3142(b) or (c).

The Government opposes release.

The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to l8 U.S.C. $ 31a3(aX2) unless (l)(a) the Court finds there ts a

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Covernment has

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown

under g 3 la5(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: June 6,2023.

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Reporl and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. $636(bXlXB).

n

n

n

t,.s. l)ls'l'Rl(:T (:ouR'r

\ORT! iltRN t)lsTlllCT olt Tlix^li

JUN 1 3 20n

cu."R-trRK- u.s. I)tsTRtcT couRrumb'ei: rl"- 3 :22-CR-00090-M

' l)eputy

ED STATES MAGISTRATE J

Case 3:22-cr-00090-M Document 48 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 135
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.3

                       Eagle Family Foods Holdings, Inc.
                      Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                       (Thousands except ratio amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Fifty-Three          One Hundred
                                                                         Week Period        Fifty-Five Day
                                                                            Ended            Period Ended
                                                                         July 3, 1999        June 27, 1998
                                                                       ---------------      ---------------
<S>                                                                    <C>                  <C>
Adjusted Earnings
Loss before income taxes...........................................    $       (22,170)     $       (40,702) (b)
Portion of rent representative of interest.........................                216                   60
Interest on indebtedness...........................................             27,793               11,571
                                                                       ---------------      ---------------
     Total earnings (loss) as adjusted.............................              5,839              (29,071)
                                                                       ---------------      ---------------
Fixed Charges
Portion of rent representative of interest.........................                216                   60
Interest on indebtedness...........................................             27,793               11,571

  Total fixed charges..............................................             28,009               11,631
                                                                       ---------------      ---------------
Deficiency of earnings.............................................    $       (22,170)     $       (40,702)
                                                                       ===============      ===============
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a).............................                 --                   --
                                                                       ===============      ===============
</TABLE>

(a)  As earnings for the fifty-three week period ended July 3, 1999 and one
     hundred fifty-five day period ended June 27, 1998 were inadequate to cover
     fixed charges, a ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the period has not
     been presented. The deficiency of earnings to fixed charges was
     approximately $22.2 and $41.0 million, respectively.

(b)  Reflects the nonrecurring in-process research and development write-off of
     $23.9 million.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVE WAYNE ERLANSON, Sr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 22

- 35894

D.C. No. 4:22

- cv

- 00091

- DCN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22 , 2024 * *

Before: CALLAHAN

, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Dave Wayne Erlanson, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

against the United States Environmental Protection Agency

. We review de novo

,

Prather v. AT&T, Inc.

, 847 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2017) , and we affirm.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

APR 30 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 35894

The district court properly dismissed Erlanson’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because Erlanson failed to establish that the United States

waived its sovereign immunity. See Jachetta v. United States , 653 F.3d 898, 908

(9th Cir. 2011) ( explaining that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not waive sovereign

immunity for United States agencies ).

AFFIRMED.