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

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-10078

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Griselda Rodriguez-Michel, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-56-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Griselda 

Rodriguez-Michel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Michel has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 3, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10078 Document: 00516596027 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023
No. 22-10078

2

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10078 Document: 00516596027 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2023
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

HAL H. WILLIAMS,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1066

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 16

- 3988, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge Joseph L. Falvey Jr.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M EGHAN G ENTILE
, Veterans Legal Adv ocacy Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant

- appellant. Also represented by H AROLD H AMILTON H OFFMAN
, III

.

R ETA E MMA B EZAK
, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by J EFFREY B. C LARK
, E LIZABETH M ARIE H OSFORD
, R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN
, J R

. ; B RIAN D. G RIFFIN
, D EREK Case: 20-1066 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2020S CADDEN , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet erans Affairs , Washington, DC

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE
, R EYNA
, and T ARANTO
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . C ir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 5, 2020 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-1066 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2020
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23656]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Blockchain Security Standards Council, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 26, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Blockchain Security 
Standards Council, Inc., (``BSSC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Anchor Labs, Inc., DBA Anchorage Digital, 
San Francisco, CA; Figment, Inc., Toronto, CANADA; and Ribbit Capital, 
New York, NY, have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and BSSC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On July 9, 2024, BSSC filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on 
September 26, 2024 (89 FR 78902).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-23656 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### JOHN F. McLEAN v. THE CHARLOTTE, COLUMBIA AND AUGUSTA RAILROAD COMPANY.

*Common Carrier*— Contract—Interstate *Commerce*— Jurisdic*tion*— Penalty.

1. A contract with a railroad company to carry freight from a place within this State to a place within another State at a fixed price for the entire route, the price thus charged being greater than that required from others for same service, is not embraced by the provisions of §1966 of *The Code.*

2. Such a contract is also a matter affecting’ interstate commerce, the control of which is vested exclusively in Congress.

*(McGwigan*v. *Railroad,*96 N. C., 428, cited and approved).

' Civil action, tried at February Term, 1886, of Iredell Superior Court, before *MacRae, Judge.*

In deference to an intimation of his Honor, at the close of the testimony, that he was not entitled to recover, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.

*Messrs. W. M. Robbins*and *B. F. Long,*for the plaintiff.

*Messrs. D. Schenck*and *Charles Price,*for the defendant.

*2Smith, C. J.

The action is prosecuted against the defendant company as the lessee of the Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio Railroad Company, in possession of and operating its road, to recover the penalty given in §1966 of *The Oode.*In view of our decision in *McGwigan*v. *Railroad,*95 N. C., 428, it becomes unnecessary to consider the particular rulings in the Court below shown in the record and intended for review in the appeal, since the same fundamental difficulty lies in the way of maintaining the action, as in other similar cases. The complaint discloses a case where the contract was for the transportation of the goods from Mooresville on the road, to the city of Philadelphia, at a fixed price for the whole route.

It is not, therefore, within the terms of the statute, and if it were, the carriage comes within interstate commerce, the regulátion of which vests exclusively in Congress. This .action must be dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

No error. Affirmed.
*April 14, 1944.*

#### Roberts, by Guardian, Appellant, vs. Roberts, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Vilas H. Whaley*and *Eugene L. Haley,*both of Racine.

For the respondent: *Beck, Heft & DuRocher*of Racine.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000925178
<NAME>                        Movie Gallery, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                              3,937
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                         291
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        11,063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   19,622
<PP&E>                            271,537<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                    184,027<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    192,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              28,438
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                               13
<OTHER-SE>                        126,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      192,814
<SALES>                            19,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  135,130
<CGS>                              12,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     126,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  1,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     6,703
<INCOME-TAX>                        2,662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 4,041
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      (682)
<CHANGES>                            (699)
<NET-INCOME>                        2,660
<EPS-BASIC>                        0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.20
<FN>
<F1> Includes $188,529 of rental inventory.
<F2> Includes $141,910 of accumulated amortization on rental inventory.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM SMITHDEAL and wife *v.*ROBERT H. SMITH.

*Lund*cannot pass by a *nunevpaiive*will.

Paetitioh of land, before *Cloud, J.,*at Fall term 1869, of Rowah Court.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were tenants in common *53■with the defendant, of the land in question, and asked judgment for a partition.

The defendant answered, admitting a tenancy in common in which he was entitled to two-thirds, and the *feme*plaintiff to one-third only: claiming that heretofore a third person was entitled in equal proportions with the *feme*plaintiff and himself, and that upon such person’s death, he left his share, by will, to the defendant.

The plaintiffs replied, claiming an *equal*share with the defendant, and alleging that the will in question was nuncu-pative, aud therefore could not convey land.

Upon the trial of this issue before the Clerk, he gave judgment for the plaintiff, and this, upon appeal, was affirmed by the Judge of the District, whereupon the defendants appealed to this court.

*Blackmer & McGorlde*for the appellants.

*B. Graige*and *It. A. GaldweU, contra.*

Peabson, C. J.

The position that land can pass by a nuncupative will, cannot be supported.

At common law, land could not be devised. Statute 32 Hen. YIII, allows any person having land held by military tenure, to devise two-thirds thereof, and any person having-land held by *socage*tenure, to devise the whole, provided the devise be made in writing, signed by the testator. By statute 12 Oar. II, all land held by military tenure, is converted into land held by free and common *socage,*and the legal effect is to make all land, except copy-hold, devisable by will in writing, *signed*by the testator. Soon after the passage of the statute of devises, the word “signed” was held by judicial construction to mean, the writing of his name by the testator in any part of the instrument. To prevent fraud, it is provided by 29 Car. II, that wills to be valid to pass land, must be *subscribed*by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator. •

*54This reference to the statutes on the subject, is made for the purpose of showing that the use of the word “ estate ” in the act in regard to nuncupative wills, Nev. Code, ch. 119, s. 11, cannot be allowed the effect of embracing land; for although the word in its general sense is broad enough to include land, yet it is obviously not used here in so broad a sense. If the purpose had been to make an entire change in the law, and to depart from the policy of the statutes 32' Hen. "VTU, and 29 Car. II, plain and positive words were called for; and so great an effect cannot he allowed the incidental use of a single word, upon any sound principle of construction.

Peb Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                               CERTIFICATE OF THE
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                             TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
         1350):

         I, Dugald K. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of Tower Automotive,
Inc., certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

         (1)      The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2003, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and;

         (2)      The information contained in this quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tower
Automotive, Inc.

                                     TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

Date: May 9, 2003                    By: /s/ Dugald K. Campbell
                                         -----------------------
                                         Dugald K. Campbell
                                     Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
#### JAMES L. CARROLL and wife v. JOHN BARDEN.

*Appeal.*

Where neither the record nor the case on appeal shows any exception or assignment of error, the judgment will be affirmed.

*{Phipps*v. *Pierce,*94 N. 0.. 514; *Lytle*v. *Lytle,*Ibid., 523; *Pleasants*v. *The Railroad,*95 N. C., 195; cited and approved).

Civil action, heard on appeal from a justice of the peace, by *Clark, Judge,*at Fall Term, 1886, of Sampson Superior Court.

There was a judgment for the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed.

*192No counsel for the plaintiffs.

*Messrs. H. E. Faison, A. W. Haywood*and *Kerr,*for the defendant.

MERRIMOS, J.

We have carefully examined the record of this appeal, and fail to find either in it, or the case settled upon appeal, any exception as assignment of error. There is nothing appearing, that in terms or by the remotest implication indicates the slightest dissatisfaction with the judgment appealed from, except simply that the appeal was-taken to this Court. It is settled by a multitude of decisions, that in such case the judgment must be affirmed.

The presumption is that the judgment is not erroneous. The party who alleges the contrary must show it, not by oral suggestion on the argument, but he must assign it in the record in such reasonable way as that this Court can see it. This is essential. The statute prescribes how this shall be done. *Philips*v. *Pierce,*94 N. C., 514; *Lytle*v. *Lytle,*Ibid., 522; *Pleasants*v. *Railroad,*95 N. C., 195. See also Clark’s Code, p., where many earlier cases are collected. Judgment affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William Marth certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Albany Molecular Research, 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; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: May 9, 2017 |        |                                      
|----------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------
|                  |        | /s/ William S. Marth                 
|                  | Name:  | William S. Marth                     
|                  | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |        |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,414
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              18
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,731
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     33,718
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,015
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,134
<LOANS>                                        186,790
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 246,402
<DEPOSITS>                                     211,357
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,914
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,688
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,251
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,341
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 246,402
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,289
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  540
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    34
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,863
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,878
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,974
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,889
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      189
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,244
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         807
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.11
<LOANS-NON>                                        830
<LOANS-PAST>                                       623
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,070
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      151
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,121
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,121
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
EXIBIT 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sector 10, Inc.; on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Pericles DeAvila, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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.








By:  /s/ Pericles DeAvila




Name: Pericles DeAvila


Principal Executive Officer




August 16, 2010
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 28 , 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00102

- CV

CHARLIE JONES , Appellant

V.

SOUTH WEST PAINT & B ODY SHOP LP, B & B M AIN ST AUTO

STORAGE, CITY OF BEL LAIRE , Appellee s

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1056216

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed February 2, 2015 . No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On April 7 , 201 5 , notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s
i ntention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days,2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby