alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-22-2003 

# F lech a v . S h a nnon P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t 01-2610

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Fle ch a v . S h a nnon " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 635. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/635

## NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No: 01-2610

____________ CARLOS M. FLECHA, JR., Appellant v. MR. R. SHANNON; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-05455) District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly

_______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on March 4, 2003 Before: ROTH, BARRY and FUENTES CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Opinion filed: April 21, 2003)

## 2 ______________ OPINION

______________ ROTH, Circuit Judge: Carlos Flecha appeals the denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus which was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On June 13, 2000, Flecha filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus relief with the District Court under the docket number 00-2984. On June 29, 2000, the District Court granted Flecha an additional 120 days to re-file his petition. This Order was also docketed under number 00-2984. On October 27, Flecha re-filed his petition with the District Court. However, this petition was docketed under a different number of 00-5455. Therefore, the re-filed petition was improperly dismissed because it was incorrectly docketed. We remand to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to correctly docket the re-filed petition, filed on October 27, 2000, under docket number 00-2984.

## 3

TO THE CLERK: Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,

/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3639 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to designate certain medical facilities 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs as health professional shortage 

areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

Mr. KIND (for himself and Mr. RIBBLE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to designate certain 

medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

as health professional shortage areas, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Access to 

5 Care Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3639 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF MEDICAL FACILITIES OF THE DE2 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS 

3 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS. 

4 (a) PHSA.—Section 332(a)(1) of the Public Health 

5 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)(1)) is amended in the sec6 ond sentence by inserting ‘‘and medical facilities of the 

7 Department of Veterans Affairs (including State homes, 

8 as defined in section 101(19) of title 38, United States 

9 Code)’’ after ‘‘(42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)),’’. 

10 (b) CONCURRENT BENEFITS.— 

11 (1) SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.—Section 338A(b) 

12 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l(b)) 

13 is amended— 

14 (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

15 (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the pe16 riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

17 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

18 paragraph: 

19 ‘‘(5) not be participating in the Department of 

20 Veterans Affairs Health Professionals Educational 

21 Assistance Program under chapter 76 of title 38, 

22 United States Code.’’. 

23 (2) DEBT REDUCTION PROGRAM.—Section 

24 338B(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

25 U.S.C. 254l–1(b)) is amended— 

26 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3639 IH

1 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the pe2 riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(4) not be participating in the Department of 

6 Veterans Affairs Health Professionals Educational 

7 Assistance Program under chapter 76 of title 38, 

8 United States Code.’’. 

9 (c) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out the National 

10 Health Service Corps Program under subpart II of part 

11 D of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 254d et seq.), the Secretary of Health and Human Serv13 ices shall consult with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

14 with respect to health professional shortage areas that are 

15 medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

16 (including State homes, as defined in section 101(19) of 

17 title 38, United States Code). 

18 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall take effect on the date that is 90 days 

20 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (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.
  /s/ Quinn J. HébertQuinn J. HébertPresident and

Chief Executive Officer/s/ G. Kregg LunsfordG. Kregg LunsfordExecutive Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer
[No. 35435.

*En Banc.*

August 24, 1961.]

#### Donelda L. Vernon, *Appellant,*v. Eldrage C. Vernon, *Respondent.****

*Brodie*& *Fristoe,*for appellant.

*Foster & Foster,*for respondent.

*

Reported in 364 P. (2d) 429.

Finley, C. J.

This appeal is an aftermath of a divorce action wherein the defendant, cross-complainant husband was awarded a divorce and custody of the parties’ only offspring, a minor son. Questions are raised as to the propriety of (1) the award of custody of the minor child to the defendant husband, and (2) the refusal of the trial court to order the husband to pay the plaintiff wife’s attorney’s fee.

We shall first discuss the question concerning the custody of the minor child (the only child of this marriage, although plaintiff wife has two children by a prior marriage). It can be said without going into detail that a review of the record discloses ample evidence from which the trial court could find that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the defendant husband. This actually ends this matter as far as we are *500concerned. However, the plaintiff raises objections and argues as to certain evidence presented to and considered by the trial court. Assuming this evidence was erroneous, the record still amply supports the trial court’s judgment. We have said on several occasions that an award of child 'custody is a matter largely within the sound discretion .of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal except in case of a manifest abuse of discretion. *Applegate v. Applegate*(1959), 53 Wn. (2d) 635, 335 P. (2d) 595; *Munroe v. Munroe*(1956), 49 Wn. (2d) 453, 302 P. (2d) 961. We find no such abuse exists in this case; furthermore, it appears to us that the trial judge put considerable time and thought into his decision.

We turn next to the question of attorney’s fees. RCW 26.08.090 provides, *inter alia:*

. . Upon the entry of judgment in the superior court, reasonable attorneys’ fees *may*be awarded either party, in addition to statutory costs. . . .” (Italics ours.)

The awarding of suit money and attorney’s fee are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be reversed on appeal unless untenable or manifestly unreasonable. *Abel v. Abel*(1955), 47 Wn. (2d) 816, 289 P. (2d) 724; *Mapes v. Mapes*(1946), 24 Wn. (2d) 743, 167 P. (2d) 405. In the instant case it appears that the plaintiff wife was working; that she was receiving support payments from her former husband; that she would be able generally in terms of finances to take care of herself. No particular need for funds appearing on the part of the plaintiff wife, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to award attorney’s fee.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Mallery, Hill, Donworth, Weaver, Rosellini, Ott, and Hunter, JJ. concur.

Foster, J., did not participate.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Russell Schechter, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers of Cinjet, Inc., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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: November 15, 2010  /s/ Russell Schechter Russell Schechter President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Cinjet, Inc. and will be retained by Cinjet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF2002



In
connection with the amended Annual Report of Capstone Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended December31,2013,asfiledwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommissiononthedatehereof(the“Report”),I,DarinR.Pastor,Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 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. | TheinformationcontainedintheReportfairlypresents,inallmaterialrespects,thefinancialconditionandresultsofoperationsofthe Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/S/ Darin R.Pastor

Darin R.Pastor

Principal ExecutiveOfficer

February 18, 2015
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DANIEL LYNN THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH NASTASI,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-540

[January 25, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE02-

011972 (08).

Robert L. Jennings of Jennings & Valancy, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.

John H. Pelzer of Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 361 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify authority under 

existing grant guidance authorizing use of Urban Area Security Initiative 

and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing 

medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2015 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana, and Mr. KING of New 

York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify 

authority under existing grant guidance authorizing use 

of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland 

Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical 

preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Preparedness 

5 Allowable Use Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 361 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF CERTAIN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT 

2 FUNDS FOR ENHANCING MEDICAL PRE3 PAREDNESS, MEDICAL SURGE CAPACITY, 

4 AND MASS PROPHYLAXIS CAPABILITIES. 

5 Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

6 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), by redesignating para8 graphs (10) through (13) as paragraphs (11) 

9 through (14), respectively, and by inserting after 

10 paragraph (9) the following: 

11 ‘‘(10) enhancing medical preparedness, medical 

12 surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities, in13 cluding the development and maintenance of an ini14 tial pharmaceutical stockpile, including medical kits, 

15 and diagnostics sufficient to protect first responders, 

16 their families, immediate victims, and vulnerable 

17 populations from a chemical or biological event;’’; 

18 and 

19 (2) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking 

20 ‘‘(a)(10)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)(11)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In connection with the Quarterly Report of China BCT Pharmacy Group, Inc. 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”), each of the undersigned do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief:




(1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operation of the Company.





Dated: August 16, 2010By:
/s/  Hui Tian TangHui Tian TangChief Executive Officer and Chairman





Dated: August 16, 2010By:
/s/  Xiaoyan ZhangXiaoyan ZhangChief Financial Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: ROKU, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-114

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-

cv-01296-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Roku, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing 

the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas to vacate its denial of transfer and to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California. IOENGINE, 

LLC opposes.

When adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge to deny transfer, the district court found that: (1) despite Roku suggesting all of its potential employee witnesses are in Northern California, several Roku employees

Case: 23-114 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 03/23/2023
2 IN RE: ROKU, INC.

are in Austin, Texas and “possess particularly relevant 

knowledge to this case,” Appx8; (2) the court could, if necessary, compel the testimony of third-party potential witnesses (including suppliers of components for the accused 

products, channel content creators, and three former Roku 

employees, including one who currently works for a relevant third-party supplier); (3) relevant sources of proof and 

custodians of that proof are in Austin; and (4) the court was 

likely to be faster in adjudicating the matter. 

On mandamus, our review is limited to determining 

whether the denial of transfer was a “‘clear’ abuse of discretion” such that refusing transfer produced a “patently 

erroneous result,” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Here, the district 

court considered the relevant factors and found, based on 

the record evidence and perceived lack of credibility of 

Roku’s declarant, that Roku had failed to show the Northern District of California was clearly more convenient, particularly given the sources of proof and potential witnesses 

in the Western District of Texas. We cannot say “that the 

facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judgment of discretion” in this case. In re Volkswagen of Am., 

Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 n.7 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citation omitted). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

March 23, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-114 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 03/23/2023
# EUR-Lex - 32011M6085 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32011M6085

**Commission Decision of 18/04/2011 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6085 - COSTA CROCIERE / ALPITOUR / WELCOME JV) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 18.04.2011

C(2011) 2867 final

PUBLIC VERSION

SIMPLIFIED MERGER PROCEDURE

To the notifying parties: | |

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6085 - COSTA CROCIERE / ALPITOUR / WELCOME JV Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1]

1. On 16.03.2011, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertakings Costa Crociere S.p.A. ('Costa', Italy), ultimately controlled by Carnival Corporation (Panama) & Carnival PLC (United Kingdom), and Alpitour S.p.A. ('Alpitour', Italy) controlled by the Exor Group (Italy), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Welcome Travel Group S.p.A. ('Welcome', Italy), currently controlled by Alpitour, by way of a purchase of shares [2] .

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- Costa operates cruise ships and provides cruises.

- Alpitour is a tour operator and provides travel agency, air transport, hotels and destination services.

- Welcome operates a network of travel agencies in Italy.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(a) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [3] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission

(signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C092, 24.03.2011, p.24

[3] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7567

ANDERSON LEWIS TERRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MRS. STEWART,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; G. L. WOODARD; D. E. DAUGHTY; T. D. HOLDER; G. WOOTEN;

T. CARROLL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-95-735-5)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Anderson L. Terry, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Terry v. Stewart, No. CA95-735-5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to

forward his records and prior cases to the United States Supreme

Court. Appellant's motion to consolidate is similarly denied.

Finally, we deny Appellant's motion to be heard 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
SHARE

# Media Contacts

ORNL's Communications team works with news media seeking information about the laboratory. Media may use the resources listed below or send questions to news@ornl.gov.
# Find People

### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
-                Page            1 
-                Current page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast » 

## A-Z

        - A (425)
        - B (953)
        - C (821)
        - D (506)
        - E (208)
        - F (310)
        - G (600)
        - H (782)
        - I (74)
        - J (277)
        - K (456)
        - L (565)
        - M (937)
        - N (208)
        - O (155)
        - P (575)
        - Q (26)
        - R (551)
        - S (1093)
        - T (403)
        - U (38)
        - V (129)
        - W (627)
        - X (23)
        - Y (117)
        - Z (104)