alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60864 Summary Calendar

QUINTON MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-150

- - - - - - - - - - July 21, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Quinton Moore appeals from the affirmance of the denial of disability and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. Moore contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) posed an improper hypothetical question to the vocational expert (VE); that the ALJ did not give proper weight to the VE’s testimony; that he was deprived of his right to an individualized determination whether he was entitled to benefits because the ALJ based his opinion on the way jobsNo. 96-60864 - 2 - traditionally are performed without regard to Moore’s inability to perform them; that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding that he retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work; that the ALJ failed to consider his subjective complaints of pain or the evidence supporting those complaints; and that the ALJ’s decision is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Moore’s contention that the hypothetical question posed to the VE lacked an evidentiary basis is without merit; Moore’s own testimony provided an evidentiary basis for the question. The ALJ discussed in detail the VE’s response to the hypothetical question incorporating the circumstances found applicable to Moore. The ALJ gave the VE’s testimony proper consideration. See Scott v. Shalala , 30 F.3d 33, 35 (5th Cir. 1994). Moore offers no factual arguments regarding his contentions that he was deprived of his right to an individualized determination of his eligibility for benefits; that the ALJ’s finding regarding his residual functional capacity is not supported by substantial evidence; that the ALJ failed to consider his subjective complaints of pain; and that the ALJ’s decision is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. He has failed to brief those contentions for appeal. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Moore’s apparent contention that an ALJ must find that a claimant has committed perjury to find his testimony not credibleNo. 96-60864 - 3 - is without merit. The ALJ determines issues of weight and credibility. Chaparro v. Bowen , 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Underwater Construction Team  2 Renders Assistance following Plane Crash in Chuuk

By MCC Matthew White30th NCR Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50251 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Jose De Jesus Rangel Hernandez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:22 - CR - 200 - 1

**_______ _______________________**  Before **Higginbotham, Stewart,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Jose de Jesus Rangel Hernandez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after removal. Hernandez argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torre s v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he contends it has been called into doubt by later decisions, and

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 27, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50251 Document: 00516979712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023No. 23 - 50251

2 he seeks to preserve the issue for S upreme Court review . He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013) , and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez - Torres . See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, Hernandez is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). **IT IS ORDERED** that Hernandez’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED** . Case: 23-50251 Document: 00516979712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139169

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139169 COA: 278834 Jackson CC: 06-004125-FH LONNIE RAY GREENE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 7, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
exmo_ex101.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 


 





 




  





1











  







 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  









 




  





5











  






 





 




  





6











  






 





 




  





7











  






 





 




  





8











  






 





 




  





9











  






 





 




  





10











  






 





 




  





11











  






 





 




  





12











  






 





 




  





13











  






 





 




  





14











  






 





 




  





15











  






 





 




  





16











  






 





 




  





17











  






 





 




  





18











  






 





 




  





19











  






 





 




  





20











  






 





 




  





21











  






 





 




  





22











  






 





 




  





23











  






 





 




  





24











  






 





 




  





25











  






 





 




  





26











  






 





 




  





27











  






 





 




  





28











  






 





 




  





29











  







 





 




  





30











  







 





 




  





31











  






 





 




  





32











  






 





 




  





33











  






 





 




  





34











  






 





 




  





35











  






 





 




  





36











  






 





 




  





37











  






 





 




  





38











  






 





 




  





39











  






 





 




  





40











  






 





 




  





41











  







 





 




  





42











  






 





 




  





43











  






 





 




  





44











  






 





 




  





45











  






 





 




  





46











  






 





 




  





47











  






 





 




  





48











  






 





 




  





49











  






 





 




  





50











  






 





 




  





51











  






 





 




  





52











  






 





 




  





53











  






 





 




  





54











  






 





 




  





55











  






 





 




  





56











  







 





 




  





57











  






 





 




  





58











  






 





 




  





59











  






 





 


 


60
**EXHIBIT 32.1**



**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF**

**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF NEW MOMENTUM CORPORATION**



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of New Momentum Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2022, the undersigned, Leung Tin Lung David, Chief Executive Officer of New Momentum Corporation, does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:







| | (1) | such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                               
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (2) | the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of New Momentum Corporation













|Date: April 17, 2023 | By: | /s/ *Leung Tin Lung David*                                              | 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                     |     | Leung Tin Lung David                                                    | 
|                     |     | President (principal executive officer and principal financial officer) |
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 PHOTON DYNAMICS, INC.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 operations of the Company.
  /s/ Jeffrey A. Hawthorne
    
    /s/ Michael SchradleJeffrey A. Hawthorne
    
    Michael SchradlePresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
#### Chicago *&*South Side Rapid Transit R. R. Co. v. Charles Lackman.

1. *Abstract—Must Show*Exceptions.—Where the abstract of the record does not show that any exceptions were taken to the action of the court below during the progress of the trial, no questions of law can be considered as before the Appellate Court.

*2. Verdict—Upon Conflicting*Evidence.—In the absence of error on the part of the court, the verdict of a jury, upon conflicting evidence, will rarely be disturbed.

Trespass on the Case—Personal injuries.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 11, 1896.

Gurley & Wood, E. C. Nichols, and Walker, Judd & Hawley, attorneys for appellant.

W. S. Elliott, Jr., and R. Wilson More, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action to recover damages for a personal injury received by the appellee in the course of his employment as a switchman for the appellant, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for §1,500 in appellee’s favor.

*438Counsel for appellant say they claim, they are entitled to a reversal of the judgment upon two grounds :

> “ First. The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.

> Second. The court erred in not giving the instructions asked for by defendant.”

Counsel for appellee object to the insufficiency of the abstract in numerous respects, and urge the application of the rule of court concerning abstracts.

If there were any exception taken to the action of the court during the trial, either as to the admission or rejection of evidence, or the giving or refusal of instructions, or in overruling the motion for a new trial, or for any reason whatever, none has been noted in the abstract of the bill of exceptions, and we can not, unaided by reference, even, to where exceptions may possibly be found, hunt through the record to ascertain what that might show in such regard. As against the appellant, the abstract must present all the errors upon which he relies. C. P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wolf, 137 Ill. 360; Wabash R. R. Co. v. Smith, 58 Ill. App. 419; Poppers v. Perkins, 61 Ill. App. 250; French v. Hotchkiss, 60 Ill. App. 580.

Alleged errors not excepted to when made are not reviewable upon appeal.

Ho questions of law are, therefore, before us.

As to whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence, we have examined to ascertain from a reading of it, whether such a case is presented as would justify us in overturning the verdict, where, as here, the verdict was returned upon conflicting evidence, and our conclusion is that we would not be so justified, even though an exception to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, were shown.

Where no error of law on the part of the court is in the case, the verdict of a jury upon conflicting evidence in cases of this character will rarely be disturbed. Wabash R. R. Co. v. Smith, *supra;*citing L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 135 Ill. 641.

The judgment will be affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2013

- 0204 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

-NM

- 229

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet


### See 747

- 53A2860 R0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number o f products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### See 747

- 53A2860 R0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# F-22 Raptors Return to Kadena Air Base

By Pacific Air Forces Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Mark J. Emkjer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Accelrys,Inc. (the “Company”) and I, David M. Sankaran, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial 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 Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company for the period covered by this Report.

 
|   | /s/  Mark J. Emkjer                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark J. Emkjer                        |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/David  M. Sankaran                 |   |
|   | David M. Sankaran                     |
|   | Senior Vice President                 |
|   | and Chief Financial Officer           |
|   |                                  |
|   | Date: May 24, 2006               |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filedwith the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before orafter the date of the Report and irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.

 

----
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2007Page 1 of 110/09/2008 15:12:28

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Millstone 3 Docket (050- 00423)

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

110

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR146 - Evaluation LTA G - Engineering S - Surveillance 146 - Evaluation LTA S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 

220

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR183 - Pre-job activities LTA O - Operations S - Surveillance 184 - Tag outs LTA I - Instrumentation & Control S - Surveillance 185 - Procedural adherence LTA C - Chemistry Z - Other / Unknown 185 - Procedural adherence LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 185 - Procedural adherence LTA O - Operations S - Surveillance 197 - Self-check LTA O - Operations S - Surveillance 

660

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / LER197 - Self-check LTA Z - Other / Unknown Z - Other / Unknown 

110

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 10