alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30993 Summary Calendar

BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS HOLDING, INC.; ET AL., Plaintiffs,

versus TOTAL CONTAINMENT, INC.; ET AL., Defendants, DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC; MARK IV INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellants

versus PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 2:04-CV-1150)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH 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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 2 PER CURIAM: * Dayco Products, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Parker-Hannifin Corp. We affirm. Parker Hannifin argues that Dayco is collaterally estopped from arguing that Parker-Hannifin is liable for indemnification regarding the Enviroflex hose claims under the Asset Purchase Agreement. We agree. This court has held that collateral estoppel applies when, in the initial litigation, (1) the issue at stake in the pending litigation is the same, (2) the issue was actually litigated, and (3) the determination of the issue in the initial litigation was a necessary part of the judgment. Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd. , 403 F.3d 272, 290 (5th Cir. 2005). In ParkerHannifin Corp. v. Dayco Products, LLC , No. 05-3518 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2006), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a decision from the United States District Court for the Northern Districtof Ohio finding that the identical Asset Purchase Agreement did not require ParkerHannifin to indemnify Dayco for claims concerning Enviroflex hoses. All of the collateral estoppel elements have been met here. Dayco argues that the Sixth Circuit did not address the following issues: (1) the effect of the “TCI Litigation” clause in the Asset Purchase Agreement, and (2) the ambiguity created by the Asset Purchase Agreement’s3

use of the word “occurrences.” The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio considered these issues and found in favor of Parker-Hannifin. Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Dayco Prods., LLC , No. 1:04-CV-897 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2005). The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Dayco Prods., LLC , No. 05-3518 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2006). Accordingly, Dayco has not raised issues that were not litigated previously. In addition, all elements for application of res judicata have been satisfied. The prior decision was between the same parties, judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, the judgment was final and on the merits, and the plaintiff raises the same cause of action. Russell v. SunAmerica Secs., Inc. , 962 F.2d 1169, 1172 (5th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED.
#### MAIORK v. STATE.

No. 15974.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1933.

A. C. Winborn, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, foil the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year. •

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

208) OGRC-S0009 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM Sheet 208 of 259 
P.2 

Os*C-sooo<? 

^fefo ^Mexico JState ^Legislature 

STATE CAPITOL 

^anta JFr 

October 12, 1990 

William K. Reilly 

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street SW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Reilly: 

At the September 28, 1990 meeting of the Revenue Stabilization and 

Tax Policy Review Committee, the committee members voted unanimously to 

express their concern about your September 25, 1990 directive stating 

that oilfield wastes will no longer be exempt from hazardous waste 

guidelines. 

The committee, which is an interim committee of the New Mexico 

State Legislature, believes this reclassification of oilfield wastes 

will have an extremely detrimental effect on the state of New Mexico. 

For example, oil reclamation plants in New Mexico are likely to close as 

a result of this action, which will adversely affect the oil and gas 

industry in the state. Moreover, such plant closures may create 

environmental problems far greater than any problems this regulation 

purports to void. j 

As a result of the potentially adverse impact in New Mexico of this 

reclassification, we have urged the New Mexico congressional delegation 

to take appropriate action to reverse this directive. We would also 

urge you to review this directive and take action to return oil wastes 

to their present exemption from hazardous waste guidelines. 

Sincerely yours, 

SENATOR EDWARD J. LOPEZ 

Chairman, Revenue Stabilization 

and Tax Policy Review Committee 

oJ. 

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY W. SANDEL 

Vice Chairman, Revenue Stabilization 

and Tax Policy Review Committee
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS OF AND FOR THE  PERIOD  ENDING  JUNE  30,  2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         7,143
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,603
<PP&E>                                         127,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                 43,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,022,953
<BONDS>                                        539,011
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    20
<COMMON>                                       581
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,441,162)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,403
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               656,080
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,156,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             91,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (760,152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (760,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (760,152)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.14)



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10731 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL E. SHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-269-ALL

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael E. Sherman appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that pursuant to United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), sentences, including those imposed upon revocation of supervised release, are reviewed under the reasonableness standard. Further, he argues that the sentence imposed was unreasonable because it substantiallyNo. 05-10731 -2- exceeded the recommended range and the district court’s reasons for imposing the sentence were insufficient. This court need not decide the appropriate standard of review for a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release in the wake of Booker because Sherman has not shown that his sentence was either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable.
See United States v. Hinson , 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006); United States v. Jones , 182 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2006). Sherman was subject to a two-year statutory maximum sentence upon revocation of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 3559(a)(3), and 3583(e)(3). The Sentencing Guidelines recommended a prison term of between 5 and 11 months based on Sherman’s Grade C violations and his criminal history category of
III. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Sherman’s sentence, while in excess of the recommended range, was within the statutory maximum sentence that the district court could have imposed. Further, a review of the record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Weese , No. 05-41366, 2006 WL 2590309 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2006) (unpublished). Therefore, the sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See Jones , 182 F. App’x at 344. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Packeteer, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dave
Cote, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, ("Section 906") that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date: October 29, 2004                /s/ DAVE COTE
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Dave Cote
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

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 staff
upon request.
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 286 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2010 

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 235th birthday of the United States Army. 

Whereas, on June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress, representing the citizens of 13 American colonies, 

authorized the establishment of the Continental Army; 

Whereas the collective expression of the pursuit of personal 

freedom caused the authorization and organization of the 

United States Army, led to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, and prompted the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 286 RFS 

codification of the new Nation’s basic principles and values in the Constitution; 

Whereas for the past 235 years, the United States Army’s 

central mission has been to fight and win wars; 

Whereas the 183 campaign streamers from Lexington to 

Iraqi Surge carried on the Army flag are a testament to 

the valor, commitment, and sacrifice of the brave members of the United States Army; 

Whereas members of the United States Army have won extraordinary distinction and respect for the Nation and its 

Army stemming from engagement around the globe; 

Whereas in 2010, the United States will reflect on the contributions of members of the United States Army on the 

Korean peninsula in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Korean War; 

Whereas the motto on the United States Army seal, ‘‘This 

We’ll Defend’’, is the creed by which the members of the 

Army live and serve; 

Whereas the United States Army is an all-volunteer force 

that is trained and ready to conduct full spectrum operations in an era of persistent conflict; and 

Whereas no matter what the cause, location, or magnitude of 

future conflicts, the United States can rely on its welltrained, well-led, and highly motivated members of the 

United States Army to successfully carry out the missions entrusted to them: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

HCON 286 RFS 

1 (1) expresses its appreciation to the members of 

2 the United States Army for 235 years of dedicated 

3 service; 

4 (2) honors the valor, commitment, and sacrifice 

5 that members of the United States Army, their fam6 ilies, and Army civilians have displayed throughout 

7 the history of the Army; and 

8 (3) calls upon the President to issue a procla9 mation— 

10 (A) recognizing the 235th birthday of the 

11 United States Army and the dedicated service 

12 of its members; and 

13 (B) calling upon the people of the United 

14 States to observe the anniversary with appro15 priate ceremonies and activities. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
03/30/2010 16:32 8163294106 SAD PAGE 02/03 

Q 

U.S, Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviatfon 

Administration 

0FPT0Fir'-."'^0WOM 

Small Airplane Directorate 

901 Lccuat 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

i'n 

S 

Mr. Eric Leaver 

Program Manager/Administrative DER 

Cub Crafters, Inc. 

1918 S, 16* Avenue/P.O. Box 9823 

Yakima, WA 98903 

Dear Mr. Leaver: 

We are enclosing a revised front page for your grant of your exemption issued on March 9, 

2010, which requested an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR part 23, §§ 23.562. 

The original exemption number was Exemption No, 10016, The first page now shows a 

new exemption number—Exemption No. 10027—for the grant of your petition. 

Unfortunately, our automated system assigned the same exemption number to two separate 

exemptions. Due to this conflict, we must revise the exemption number for your exemption. 

We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to ensure that this situation does not 

occur again. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Les Taylor at the above address 

or call him, on 816-329-4134. 

Sincerely 

^ Kim Smith 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosure 
03/30/2010 16:32 8163294106 SAD PAGE 03/03 

Exemption No, 10027 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

CUB CRAFTERS, INC 

for an exemption from § 23,562 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-1161 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated November 13,2009, Mr. Eric Leaver, Program Manager/DER, Cub 

Crafters, Inc., 1918 S. 16^'^ Avenue, Yakima, WA 98903 petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Cub Crafters, Inc. for an exemption from § 33,562 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would 

allow for type certification of the Model CC18-181 aircraft with seats that have not shown 

compliance with the emergency landing dynamic conditions. Cub Crafters, Inc. proposes the 

use of static tests on the seats. 

The petitioner requests relief from the foUoYving regulation[$]: 

Section 23.562 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each seat/restraint for use in a nonrial, 

utility, or acrobatic category airplane successfully complete dynamic seat tests, or 

otherwise demonstrate each seat/restraint system by rational analysis supported by 

dynamic tests, under the test conditions named in § 23.562, paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2). 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner states Cub Crafters proposes the use of static tests on the scat and 

harnesses and to equip the aircraft with a four-point harness by using a Technical 

Standards Order (TSO), and that the low stall speed and low head impact is also 

justification for the exemption.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,154,632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  881,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                    38,000
<INVENTORY>                                     40,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,374,959
<PP&E>                                       1,536,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                 442,356
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,753,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          934,440
<BONDS>                                          4,017
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,745,079
<COMMON>                                     8,778,300
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,708,199)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,753,637
<SALES>                                        619,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               727,239
<CGS>                                          473,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  561,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (29,139)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,488,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,488,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    (207,733)
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,696,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)
        

</TABLE>
### SERVED: June 

### 10, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

### l:JHI**jJ~~** I I 

### P j: 

## 33 OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF MEYERLABORATORY, INC. FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0618
HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thattestimony and evidence will be heard and considered on September23, 24 and 25, 2014, inclusive, in Courtroom TBA, Charles Evans WhittakerUnited States Courthouse, 400 East Ninth Street, Kansas City MO 64106 1• Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at4:30p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day. Settled cases 

### will not be removed from the docket until theJudge receives the proper pleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or· postal service.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1 The parties should check with the Clerk ofCourt onthe day ofhearing for the exact courtroom.

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2W10001

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 Federal Aviation Administration 2300 EastDevon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7862 FAX: 847-294-7498 Terry Oles, Vice President ofOperations Meyer Laboratory, Inc., Respondent 2401 NW Jefferson Street Blue Springs, MO 64015 

### ONE COPY

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 · U.S
.. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS Nos. FAA-2013-0618 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by.U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following. address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. ·

2