alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.

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 US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Sicuro, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Sicuro                                                                        
|Michael A. Sicuro
Chief Financial Officer of
US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.

August 9, 2010



-74-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LUCAS HORTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANTAGE ONE BROKERS

CORP.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 3:22-cv-02474-B-BT

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of

United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated January 4, 2024. The Court has made a

de novo review of those portions of the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations to

which objections were made. The objections are overruled. 

SO ORDERED, this 22

nd

 day of January, 2024.

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Case 3:22-cv-02474-B-BT Document 27 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 138
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AMARILLO DIVISION 

DISPLAY CONCEPTS PARTY 

RENTALS, INC., 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

GENERAL ST AR INDEMNITY 

COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

2:22-CV-201-Z 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Before the Court is parties' Joint Notice of Stipulated Remand (ECF No. 4), filed on 

October 25, 2022. This Court construes the filing as a joint motion for remand ("Motion"). See 

ECF No. 5. Having considered the Motion, pleadings, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS the 

Motion and REMANDS this action to the 108th Judicial District of Texas. 

When adjudicating an action in diversity, this Court's jurisdiction is limited to "civil 

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests 

and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint - the live pleading 

before removal - contains no request for monetary relief. See generally ECF No. 1-5. Plaintiff 

prays only for "appoint[ment] of an umpire . .. to resolve the dispute." Id. at 29. 

Appointment of an umpire "is declaratory or sui generis in nature." Mi Realty, LLC v. Atl. 

Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-00368, 2022 WL 705861, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022). "In actions 

for declaratory or injunctive relief, the amount in controversy 'is the value of the right to be 

protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented."' Id. ( quoting St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. 

Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998)). The Fifth Circuit has not addressed the 

Case 2:22-cv-00201-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 153
determination of an amount in controversy in actions seeking the appointment of an umpire for 

appraisal. And courts in this circuit split on the issue. See id ( collecting cases). 

"Because the case law is not clear on the issue of determining the amount in controversy 

for actions that seek only the appointment of an umpire to settle an insurance appraisal 

dispute ... the [C]ourt resolves this matter in favor of remand. Id. at *4; see also Valencia v. 

Allstate Tex. Lloyd's, 976 F.3d 593, 595 (5th Cir. 2020) ("Because removal raises significant 

federalism concerns, the removal statute is strictly construed and any doubt as to the propriety of 

removal should be resolved in favor of remand." (quoting In re Hot-Hed, Inc., 477 F.3d 320,323 

(5th Cir. 2007))). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion and REMANDS this action to the 

108th Judicial District of Texas. 

SO ORDERED. 

November_!_, 2022 

2 

HEW J. KACSMARYK 

ITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:22-cv-00201-Z-BR Document 10 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 154
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Friday, September 24, 2010 Meeting September 24, 2010
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
10:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

AgendaMeeting SummaryMeeting Attendance

September 24, 2010 Meeting Materials

**Presenter/Member Bios:**

Tim Decker
	Janet Chiancone
	Thomas Perrelli
	Jeffrey Roth
	Mitch Landrieu Vision
	Patrick Corvington
	New Practitioners: Richard Vincent & Deborah Schumacher**Presentations/Presenter Handouts:**

J. Chiancone OJJDP's Research Program
	J. Roth Presentation - "Whys" Behind Juvenile Crime Trends
	T. Decker Presentation Part 1
	T. Decker Presentation Part 2
	Missouri DYS Historical Perspective
	Missouri DYS Demographic Overview
	Enhanced Missouri DYS Treatment Beliefs**Legislative and Program Updates:**

HHS Announcements
	DOJ Fact Sheet Defending Childhood
	DOJ Press Release - Defending Childhood Initiative
	DOJ Attorney General's Remarks - Defending Childhood Initiative
	DOD/USDA Call for Proposals Announcement
  
Date Published: September 24, 2010
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 386 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 386

     To designate September 14, 1994, as ``Mercy Otis Warren Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 1994

    Mr. Hughes introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
     To designate September 14, 1994, as ``Mercy Otis Warren Day''.

Whereas Mercy Otis Warren was born on September 14, 1728, in Barnstable, 
        Massachusetts, one of 13 children who, while without a formal education, 
        had a thirst for knowledge and ardent interest in politics that 
        transformed her into one of the prominent political thinkers and 
        commentators of her day;
Whereas Mercy Otis Warren maintained an aggressive concern for public affairs 
        and the role of women in society, and was determined that women should 
        not be restricted to domestic interests;
Whereas Mercy Otis Warren wrote numerous published works providing commentary on 
        the leading political figures of the American Revolution and the 
        political viewpoints of the day, including a major literary work, the 3-
        volume History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American 
        Revolution, completed in 1805;
Whereas Mercy Otis Warren was so well respected by her contemporaries for her 
        understanding of political issues that her advice was sought by such 
        notables as John and Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson;
Whereas Mercy Otis Warren wrote a 19-page pamphlet published in 1788 entitled 
        ``Observations On The New Constitution'', contributing to the political 
        movement which provided the foundation for the Bill of Rights; and
Whereas Mercy Otis Warren is recognized by American historians as a poet, 
        patriot, and historian of the American Revolution: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That September 14, 1994, is 
designated as ``Mercy Otis Warren Day'', and the President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people 
of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies 
and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Case 4:22-cr-00322-P Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cr-00322-P Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
Case 4:22-cr-00322-P Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
Case 4:22-cr-00322-P Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cr-00322-P Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
Case 4:22-cr-00322-P Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
Case 4:22-cr-00322-P Document 1 Filed 08/11/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
# The Second Battle of Cowpens: South Carolina vs. Winchester, Virginia

/ Published Feb. 13, 2019

JFSC Faculty, Pat Hannum published "The Second Battle of Cowpens: South Carolina vs. Winchester, Virginia" in Journal of the American Revolution. Published 19 March 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-CR-213-P

DAVID DEVANEY, SR. (01),

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant David Devaney, Sr.’s motion to 

suppress. ECF No. 82. Given the lack of information contained in 

Devaney’s motion (ECF No. 82) and the Government’s brief (ECF No. 

83), the Court will defer ruling on this motion to suppress until trial. See 

United States v. Bovell, 2020 WL 5879103, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2020).

SO ORDERED on this 25th day of October 2022.

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 97 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 413
----

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 April 2006 to 30 April 2006

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

(2006/C 124/03)

Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:

----

(1)OJ L 136 of 30.4.2004, p. 1.

----
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 23

- 3489

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James E. Horne, Jr.

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________
Submitted: February 1 5 , 2024 Filed: February 21, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________
Before SHEPHERD

, STRAS , and KOBES , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Horne, Jr. received a 180

- month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to carjacking

, see 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2) ; discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, see id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) ; and possessing a firearm as a felon, see id.-2- § 922(g)(1). An Anders brief suggests that the district court 1 abused its discretion by overruling his objections and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.
See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement

covers these issues

. See United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo ); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889

– 92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that a n appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within its scope, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice)

. We have also independently reviewed
the record and conclude that no other non

- frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio

, 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 (1988). We accordingly dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to wi thdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Case 4:22-cr-00272-P Document 50 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 132
Case 4:22-cr-00272-P Document 50 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 133
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SWIFT ENERGY
PENSION PARTNERS 1994D LTD'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS CONTAINED
IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEP-30-1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         631,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               773,435
<PP&E>                                       2,843,556
<DEPRECIATION>                               (304,759)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,312,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          323,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,988,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,312,232
<SALES>                                        415,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               440,391
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,108<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                237,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            237,479
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   237,479
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES LEASE OPERATING EXPENSES,PRODUCTION TAXES AND DEPRECIATION AND
AMORTIZATION EXPENSE. EXCLUDES GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND INTEREST EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF
THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, George E. Crapple, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield
Corporation, the Managing Owner of The Millburn World Resource Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Trust on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.


/s/ George E. Crapple
---------------------
George E. Crapple
Co-Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2005
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

AIR VENT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

POWERMAX ELECTRIC CO., LTD,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2439-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Pending before the Court is Defendant Powermax Electrical Co., Ltd., 

Guandong’s (“Powermax”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 9). 

After reviewing the motion, response, reply, and applicable law, the Court DENIES 

Powermax’s motion. (Doc. 9). 

I. Background

This is one of the four Air Vent cases in front of this Court: No. 3:22-CV-0229, 

No. 3:22-CV-2437, No. 3:22-CV-2793, and No. 3:22-CV-2439. In each of these four 

cases, Powermax has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Air Vent Inc.’s complaint for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court has authored a memorandum opinion and 

order analyzing the merits of—and ultimately denying—Powermax’s motion in Air 

Vent Inc. v. Powermax Electric Co. LTD, No. 3:22-CV-0229, (Doc. 93) (N.D. Tex.) 

(Starr. J.). 

Case 3:22-cv-02439-X Document 33 Filed 01/24/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 937
2

The facts in this case differ slightly, but none of those differences warrant 

deviating from the Court’s decision in No. 3:22-CV-0229. While this case concerns a 

different fire occurring in a different state, Air Vent has produced documents in 

jurisdictional discovery showing that Powermax entered a long-standing relationship 

knowing that its fans were being shipped to Texas and that the fan in question in this 

dispute passed through Texas. So while the facts are slightly different, the Court’s 

analysis in No. 3:22-CV-0229 remains unchanged. 

II. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Powermax’s motion. (Doc. 9). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2024.

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02439-X Document 33 Filed 01/24/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 938
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7209

WILLIE JOE CALDWELL,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District 

Judge. (4:12-cv-02619-SB)

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Joe Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Joe Caldwell seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the 

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Caldwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Wayne Carley

Publisher / STEM M agazine

2055 Barrett Lakes Boulevard, 1315

Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

Dear Mr. Carley :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your December 19, 2014 exemption request on behalf of STEM Magazine into

the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 14

- 1099 ) , but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exempti on.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure