alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.”

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10879

Summary Calendar

 

MICHAEL A. PACIELLA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARY MAYES Et. al.,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-630-H)

 

April 19, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case is an appeal from a district court’s affirmance of

decree issued by a bankruptcy court. We affirm.

I

We rely on the statement of the facts of the district court’s

opinion below. We add only that Paciella’s contract was with

McAdams as an independent entity. Nothing in this contract, or in

the oral testimony in the record, supports the supposition that
2

Mass Mutual owed commissions to Paciella directly. To the

contrary, the contract expressly provided that Mass Mutual will be

liable to pay commissions and other outstanding amounts directly to

Paciella only in the event that it terminated its relationship with

McAdams.

II

The district court rejected Paciella’s appeal on estoppel

grounds, relying primarily on Kaiser v. Standard Oil Co., 89 F.2d

58 (5th Cir. 1937). We are uncertain that this case remains good

law after United States v. Hougham, 364 U.S. 310 (1960), especially

where, as here, the party accepting the benefit of the judgment

never manifested its intent to make such acceptance a final

settlement of all claims. We express no view on this question

because we affirm the bankruptcy judge’s equitable decree on the

merits.

Paciella’s first contention is that McAdams’ refusal to

disburse funds in late November constituted a violation of the

bankruptcy court’s automatic stay. Citizens Bank of Maryland v.

Strumpf, 116 S. Ct. 286 (1995), forecloses this argument. Paciella

provides us with no reason to distinguish Strumpf.

Paciella’s second argument is that lack of mutuality prevented

operation of the doctrines of recoupment and set-off. He contends

that McAdams is merely a disbursing agent for Mass Mutual, and

therefore that Mass Mutual owes him his commissions directly. The

earlier $4500 transactions, which were designated “commission
3

advances” in the receipts Paciella signed, were in fact personal

loans from McAdams to Paciella.

The contract between Paciella and McAdams stated otherwise.

Under this contract, Mass Mutual became responsible to pay Paciella

only in the event that it terminated its relationship with McAdams,

an event that never occurred.

Regarding the appellees’ motion for sanctions, we hold that

Strumpf foreclosed only one of Paciella’s arguments on this appeal,

and therefore that Paciella did not act in bad faith.

The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED. The appellees’

motion for sanctions is DENIED.
# /(1( UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# fILED MAY O't 20m NORMA B. CALVERT, )**rrl"~k** J. ,. r)' ,,-, "',1 t**u.~.** l.Istr:ctanD Bankruptcy Courts ) Plaintiff, ) ) 

### v. ) ) Civil Action No. 09-01560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

### etal., ) ) Defendants. ) 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 15, 2010, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirements ofthe Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"),

see28 U.s.c. 

### § 1915. The Court has received plaintiff's April 20, 2010 letter, and construes itas a motion to reopen his case. With the letter and its attachments, plaintiff has demonstrated his effortsto timely submit acertified copy of his trust fund account statement forthe six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint as the PLRA requires. The Court will grant plaintiff's motion to reopen the

case. According to plaintiff's submission, the balance in his trust fund account atthe time he filed this action far exceeded the $350 filing fee. Itdoes not appearthat plaintiff is indigent, and the Court will deny his motion to proceed in formapauperis. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

# [:fLt>- 

# S**t;L¥c~** United States DistrictJudge
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of China Lithium Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China lithium Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by China lithium Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated: August 30, 2011


/s/ Kun LiuKun Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
#### Kathleen E. Olencki et al., Respondents, v Presbyterian Hospital in City of New York at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center et al., Defendants, and Suffolk Heart Group et al., Appellants.

[774 NYS2d 750]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Suffolk Heart Group, Eileen Bishop, and David Farr appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), entered May 16, 2003, as denied their motion for leave to amend their answers to add the affirmative defense of culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiffs decedent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that the determination as to whether to grant leave to amend the pleadings rests with the sound discretion of the trial court *(see Henderson v Gulati,*270 AD2d 308 [2000]; *see also Jordan v Aviles,*289 AD2d 532 [2001]; *Branch v Abraham & Strauss Dept. Store,*220 AD2d 474 [1995]; *Girardin v Town of Hempstead,*209 AD2d 668 [1994]). Here, in determining whether to grant the appellants’ post note of issue motion for leave to amend their answers, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion. Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23 

 

The Board of Directors 

of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp.: 

 

Weconsent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-29885, 333-81813, and 333-54688) on Form S-8 of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. of our report dated March 12, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets ofHungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2003, and the related financial statements Schedules I and II which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. 

 

KPMG Hungaria Kft. 

 

Budapest, Hungary 

March 12, 2004
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Xerox Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), for the quarter ending March 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Gary R. Kabureck, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John F. Rivera, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    Gary R.
KabureckGary R. KabureckChief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2010/s/    John F. RiveraJohn F. RiveraChief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2010


This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to Xerox Credit
Corporation and will be retained by Xerox Credit Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00137-CV

IN RE Martin MARES, Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 11, 2020

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 4, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for emergency 

stay pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. On March 6, 2020, relator filed 

an amended petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the amended petition and the record, 

this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the amended petition 

for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s motion for emergency stay 

is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019-CI-18694, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Maria Christina 

Luna Mares and Martin Mares, Jr. and In the Interest of K.I.M., A.N.M., and R.J.M., Minor Children, pending in the 

57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 4 6 1

- C R

Style: Gilberto Antonio Guillen

- Hernandez v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : May 2

, 201 9

Type of motion: Motion f o r Pro Se Access to the Records and Briefs

Party filing motion: Pro Se Appellant Gilberto Antonio Guillen

- Hernandez

Document to be filed: N/A

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

On December 18 , 201 8 , appellant’s appointed counsel timely filed appellant’s brief on

the merits and has not sought to withdr a w f rom rep r esenting a ppellant , and the State’s

. appellee’s brief was filed on April 5, 2019. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5. According l y

, appellant’s motion for pro se access to the records and briefs is dismissed as moot

because he is current l y r e presen t ed b y couns e l and is not entitl e d to h y brid

rep r esentat i o n

. See Ex parte Tay l o r

, 36 S

. W .3d 88 3 , 887 (Tex. C ri m

. A pp . 2001)

(sta t ing “ [ a]ppell a nts are not all o wed to have h y b rid representati o n” and a p pellant

did not have r i ght to f

ile doc u ments with appe l late co u rt while repr e sented b y

c ounsel). Appellant’s appointed counsel, James Rivera , is directed to contact his client

regarding this motion.

Judge’ s signature:

___

/s/ Justice Laura C. Higley

______

x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __ May 9, 2019

___
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 3, 2023

No. 04-22-00310-CR

Julio C. RIVERON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR2932

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On December 5, 2022, we abated this appeal to the trial court to hold a hearing to 

determine whether appellant’s court-appointed counsel had abandoned the appeal. We received 

a supplemental clerk’s record and supplemental reporter’s record on February 3, 2023. The 

supplemental clerk’s record contains findings of fact and conclusions of law, stating that 

appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, that appellant’s counsel has not abandoned the appeal, 

and that there was good cause for the delay in filing appellant’s brief. Appellant’s counsel stated 

to the trial court, at the hearing, that he would be able to file appellant’s brief by February 7, 

2023.

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of this court. 

It is further ORDERED that appellant’s brief is due on February 7, 2023. No further requests 

for extension of time will be allowed.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of February, 2023.
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of CPI Aerostructures, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                  295,698
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,345,490
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             7,148,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        10,699,429
<PP&E>                                  7,029,462
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,983,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          22,695,711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   5,766,282
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                                2,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                              7,191,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            22,695,711
<SALES>                                 21,603,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        21,503,284
<CGS>                                   15,668,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           15,668,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        4,018,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      1,116,661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1,111,917
<INCOME-TAX>                            303,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     808,917
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            808,917
<EPS-BASIC>                             .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .30






</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00362-CR

Jesus A. Perales

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1440835D)

November 17, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133893 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133893 

 COA: 276916 

Oakland CC: 03-188452-FH 

JAMES LEE JAMERSON III,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 TVI  Corporation(the  "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  I,Mark  N.  Hammond,
Chairman and Treasurer, of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 1350,
as adopted pursuant to $ 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/ Mark N. Hammond
----------------------
Chairman and Treasurer
August 29, 2002
, ' . \ 

... )..... REF ID: A272907 

... 

----------------····-·-······- -·------------- ----- ·--··· 

- ,.- ---·-

t;4 

·-r-------------4-4-------- 54 r--~~~~~--

., . '\ 

t 

I 

·. /' ~ r--._ ~ 

\• }' '1( 1!_) ,· ·-.. ~/ .. J '·· 4~ .so $3 

/ "\ . ... j ( .. ' /""") ( -...) 0 

5 

. _/ \......._ \ ·. 

z. ~3 ' 

f 

J 

• .:;,•.: •• "' """ ...• ~A;.' 

61 

59 41 - "V" . 

) 60) . .J \.._ .) .._ __ ) 0 

-_1().0 -+--

/NV.E-A/ro~ 

>f//LL/A~ P: rR/ED~"""'A/ 

tZ.1..cc,·c. // v-~~ k,._ 

@'pp roved for Release As Amended Signed: Date: 09-13-2013 BY ~ e.i.,. ..._.. 0.. . ~~ 
--

I 

~ 

I , 

- I .s ~ 

I - ~ 

I 

'-

' .. ~ 

.33 

4---4: 

67 

6 .... 

--

7 

' 

I ;-._ 

89 10 

--- --

// 

r' 

"I I 

- _o/7/d 9/ , 

4 ~ 70 

I , 

- I 

I 

- I , 

I - , 

- I , 

--- ~~ .. ..::...._ I 

I .,.,,..,. 0 7 66 I 

• , .36 

.33 -HY 

6 --1 

7 

--

-- 8 

5 

g -

----· 10 

.J 

l~~ l Ill \n. •I 

- r, ......_ 

"::' I 

-.._ I - ~ 

-' I 

'• 

~~ 6.'' II ' -

REF ID:A272907 -

,,c=-/ G . 2'. 

-- - -

IZ /.3 /4 /S , / Ir· I f ~ I r~ ) I ~ I c ·.r I I ,• 

... 

---

r='/ c;,.,3. 

--- - // ' .9 II ' 7 /O" 

r8~- IZ 13' /4 /6 \ - -~- , , 

~r , 1 _.., 

""-i7 - . I I I .. I -....... ... - r 

I I 

6 ,,J 

...,, ,...._____ 

a 

.s.. .~ 

, 

!J -

1..---- -

10 

J 

,, ,r 

6 

"f1 

.s 

·~~ ' 

'1 ,_ 

.~, 

-I 

.9 II 

,, 

--- 10 ~---

._ 

• • -36 1 

11\·l•l ·I· 

- -.,, r 

""' r 

~. 

I 

::-

..2. 

~--l ' ~ .36 ,, 

~ 

I 

'":'-, I 

- r ; 

-

.. I 

...... J -

I 

~ I r 

.. -; I 

.. ' 

"I .. .. ~- ____... .. - ~ - ~-

--<-·- ---~ 

-- -- -- --i---<>-- -- -

~ ![I .! ii . ' I ~ ... 

I2 

1 

C1.1-=" <'I I 

~ I r' p 

.. .. 

/.¢_ 

/,..,.v.e /'V re>,q 

J.1,// L L I A/""'? F. FR/ED ~,..:f/V 

;~./1-v~ 

dv r;;~~ a. N~
# CE2004084EN.01024001.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/240 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/240

---

(2004/C 84 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   EU action against the Guantánamo Bay prison

Subject:

The European Parliament has asked the current President of the Council, the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, to protest to Washington about the imprisonment of EU residents at the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. 26 EU residents are being held at Camp X-Ray. This prison holds people who have been arrested in connection with the war on terrorism since 11 September.

Does the Council know exactly what offences these 26 detainees are accused of?

Do not national governments have a responsibility to help safeguard the legal rights of their nationals in foreign prisons?

Can the Council provide a list of other EU residents who are being held in other non-European prisons for political reasons or in connection with criminal offences? Does the Council also keep abreast of their situation? How, specifically, does the Council go about this? To what results has it led in the past?

Reply

(11 March 2004)

(11 March 2004)

The Council is not in a position to provide details of the offences for which any detainees are currently being held in Guantánamo Bay.

As the Council has previously stated in its replies to Written Questions E-1420/03 and E-2444/03, the protection of the rights and interests of Member States' nationals abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is the responsibility of the individual Member States concerned, whether the individuals involved are being held in Guantánamo Bay or elsewhere.

For this reason, the Council does not maintain any list of the type to which the question refers. If a Member State chooses to bring the case of detention of one of its nationals abroad to the attention of the other Member States and requests assistance from the EU in lobbying for his/her release, then the relevant Council Working Group may agree to the Presidency's instructing the EU Heads of Mission in the third country concerned to carry out an appropriate démarche, confidential or otherwise, or to the EU Troika raising the matter in a political dialogue meeting with the third country concerned, where relevant. In such cases, the Presidency normally keeps the Member States informed of the outcome of the démarche or discussion and any follow-up thereto. Such approaches have been successful in some cases in achieving the desired result.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                            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 Annual Report of Trinity Biotech plc (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rory Nealon, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


RORY NEALON*
----------------
Rory Nealon
Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2006


*The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.