alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR HOUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

LUKE KOLL, Psych Tech Unit 8, CSH; et

al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17094

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00146-LJO-SAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

California civil detainee Victor Houx appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his action alleging Fourth Amendment claims arising out of a

search of his person and his sleeping area. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(order). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Houx alleged that defendant Koll conducted an unclothed strip search

without cause. These allegations, liberally construed, were “sufficient to warrant

ordering [defendant Koll] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,

1116 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699-701 (9th Cir.

1997) (setting forth factors to evaluate whether a search is reasonable under the

Fourth Amendment claim); Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir.

1988) (“[N]ot all strip search procedures will be reasonable; some could be

excessive, vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate penological

interest.”). Accordingly, we reverse the judgement in part, and remand for further

proceedings on Houx’s Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Koll stemming

from his strip search.

In his opening brief, Houx fails to address how the district court erred in

dismissing his claim relating to the search of his property and his claims against

defendants King and Lewright. Thus, Houx has waived his appeal of the dismissal

of those claims. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n

appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”);

2 15-17094
see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not

manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a

claim . . . .”).

Houx’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on January 25, 2016, is denied.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

3 15-17094
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   515,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (515,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.02


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00831

- CV

Michael Thomas PAUL

, Appellant

v.

Miguel LOPEZ , Dave Padula, John Stricklin, Javier Zuniga, John Doe I, Det. Spiller, Ron

Eberhardt , News4 WOAI, Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 2085

- CV

- A Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On October 31, 2018, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court. On December 7, 2018, we issued an order noting that the filing fee had not been paid and directing appellant, on or before December 17, 2018, to either (1) pay the filing fee; or (2) provide written proof that he is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the filing fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (c)

. On December 17, 2018, appellant filed a statement of inability to pay court costs in this court

.

It appears that appellant did not file a statement of inability to pay court costs until after

he filed his notice of appeal

. However, an uncontested statement of inability to pay court costs filed in the appellate court can be adequate to fulfill the fundamental purpose o f Rule 20.1. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(c); Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Office , 25 7 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. 2008)

. Therefore, t he trial court clerk, the c ourt reporter, or any party may file a contest to appellant’s statement of inability to pay court costs on or before January 22 , 2019 . If no contest is filed, the statement’s allegations will be deemed true, and appellant will be permitted to proceed without the payment of the appellate filing fee or the cost to prepare the reporter’s

record. However, appellant will still be required to request the reporter’s record in writing, which

requ est must designate the portions of the proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(1). On the other hand, i f a contest is timely filed, this court will issue an appropriate order.The clerk of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order and a copy of

appellant’s statement of inability to pay court costs to the parties, the trial court clerk, the court reporter, and the trial court judge.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 9th day of January, 201 9

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# C_2016222EN.01000101.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 222/01)

Last publication

OJ C 211, 13.6.2016

Past publications

OJ C 200, 6.6.2016

OJ C 191, 30.5.2016

OJ C 175, 17.5.2016

OJ C 165, 10.5.2016

OJ C 156, 2.5.2016

OJ C 145, 25.4.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2737 

To amend the American History and Civics Education program under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require inclusion 

of programs that educate students about the history and principles of 

the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of Rights. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. KING, Mr. COONS, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the American History and Civics Education program under the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 to require inclusion of programs that educate students about the history and principles of the 

Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of 

Rights. 

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 ‘‘Constitution education 

5 Is Valuable In Community Schools Act of 2021’’ or the 

6 ‘‘CIVICS Act of 2021’’. 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with ENR BILL
2 

•S 2737 IS

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 

2 Section 2233(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 

3 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6663(b)) is amended 

4 by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(1) shall— 

7 ‘‘(A) show potential to improve the quality 

8 of student achievement in, and teaching of, 

9 American history, civics and government, or ge10 ography, in elementary schools and secondary 

11 schools; 

12 ‘‘(B) demonstrate innovation, scalability, 

13 accountability, and a focus on underserved pop14 ulations; and 

15 ‘‘(C) include programs that educate stu16 dents about the history and principles of the 

17 Constitution of the United States, including the 

18 Bill of Rights; and 

19 ‘‘(2) may include hands-on civic engagement ac20 tivities for teachers and students.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with ENR BILL
# C_2016105EN.01000501.xml

| 19.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7964 — Recruit Holdings/USG People)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 105/02)

On 15 March 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7964. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7964. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

# CERTIFICATION

# PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

# AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Oded Bashan, as Chief Executive Officer of On Track Innovations Ltd. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)       
          the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008
          as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
          Report) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated:  June 29, 2009 |  | By: /s/ Oded Bashan
Oded BashanChief Executive Officer of the Company
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00388-CR

DANIEL RIOS HINOJOSA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 39522CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daniel Rios Hinojosa was convicted of the offense of “Continuous Sexual Abuse 

of Young Child” and sentenced to 75 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02 

(West 2011). In two issues, Hinojosa complains that his sentence violates his 

constitutional rights pursuant to the United States and Texas Constitutions because the 

sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime and inappropriate as applied to him. 

Because his complaints are not preserved, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Hinojosa v. State Page 2

At trial, Hinojosa never objected to the sentence he received nor did he file a 

motion for new trial on the basis that his sentence violated the 8th Amendment to the 

United States Constitution or Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution. See U.S. 

CONST. AMEND. VIII; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13. An objection on this basis must be made to 

the trial court in order to be preserved. Because no such objection was made, we find 

that Hinojosa's complaints were not preserved for our review. TEX. R. APP. P. 

33.1(a)(1)(A); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Broxton v. State, 

909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (reviewing court will not consider errors, even 

of constitutional magnitude, not called to the trial court's attention). See also Rhoades v. 

State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that complaint relating to 

constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was waived when no 

objection on this basis was made in trial court). Accordingly, Hinojosa's first and second 

issues are overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2016

Do not publish 

[CRPM]
---

---

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 Top Image Systems Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arie Rand, Chief Financial
Officer 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 results of operations of the Company.

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

Date: April 8, 2008

| |  | /s/ Arie Rand
Arie RandChief Financial Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
# C_2014431EN.01000401.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/4

---

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

(2014/C 431/06)

At its General Meeting on 7 October 2014, the Court designated the Fourth Chamber as the Chamber that is, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 107 of those Rules, for the period from 7 October 2014 to 6 October 2015.

---
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF THE ACTING PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


By signing below, the Acting Principal Financial Officer hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, (i) this report on Form
10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in this
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Hybrid Fuels Inc.



Signed this 22nd day of May 2006:



By: /s/ Douglas Dickie
--------------------------------
Douglas Dickie
Acting Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Hybrid Fuels Inc. and will be
retained by Hybrid Fuels Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,821-01

EX PARTE LARRY DONNELL GIBBS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2015CRR001320-D1(A) IN THE 49 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM WEBB COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion.

CONCURRING OPINION

Ijoin this Court’s remand order because I agreewith its observation that applicant has alleged

facts that, “if true, might entitle him to relief.” Because applicant has pleaded a colorable

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Iwould orderthe habeas court on remand to appoint counsel

for him upon request if he is indigent, regardless of whether the trial court holds a hearing. See Ex

parte Pointer, 492 S.W.3d 318, 320-21 (Tex.Crim.App. 2016) (per curiam) (Alcala, J., concurring). 

At a minimum, however, in addition to the order’s current admonition that the appointment of

counsel is mandatory for an indigent applicant upon request if the habeas court holds a hearing, I

would include a further admonishment that an indigent applicant is “entitled” to the appointment of

counsel upon request “if the court concludes that the interests of justice require representation.” See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 1.051(d). 

Filed: November 23, 2016

Do Not Publish
Industry Canada                         Industrie Canada




CERTIFICATE                                       CERTIFICAT
OF CONTINUANCE                                    DE PROROGATION
                    

CANADA BUSINESS                                   LOI CANADIENNE SUR
CORPORATION ACT                                   LES SOCIETES PAR ACTIONS
                    




TURBODYNE TECHNOLOGIES INC.                                330460-4




--------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Name of corporation-Denomination       Corporation number-Numero de la de la
                                       societe


                                                                              
I hereby certify that the above-       Je certifie que societe susmentionnee
corporation was continued under        a ete prorogee en vertu de l'article
section 187 of the Canada Business     187 de la Loi cannadienne sur les 
Corporations Act, as set out in        societes par actions, tel qu'il est
the attached articles of               indique dans les clauses de prorogation
continuance.                           ci-jointes.


          /s/ Directeur
          Director-Directeur       DECEMBER 3, 1996/LE 3 DECEMBRE 1996

                                   Date of Continuance - Date de la prorogation

CANADA
SERVED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

. IN THE MATTER OF 

CHERIF DIALLO 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0544 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014S0290047) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

,. : * . 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC~30 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Cherif Diallo, Respondent 

263 W 153rd St. 

Apt. 6D 

New York, NY 10039 

Taneesha D. Marshall 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0544 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 ServiCe was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
# C_2015236EN.01000101.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 236/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 228, 13.7.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 221, 6.7.2015

OJ C 213, 29.6.2015

OJ C 205, 22.6.2015

OJ C 198, 15.6.2015

OJ C 190, 8.6.2015

OJ C 178, 1.6.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSE ANTONIO COSSIO, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

 Michael B. Donley, SECRETARY OF THE AIR 

FORCE AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2012-1662

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois in No. 11-CV-9178, Judge 

Harry D. Leinenweber.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Jose Antonio Cossio, Jr. moves unopposed to withdraw his motion to stay the appeal. Cossio also moves for 

an extension to file his reply brief, and for leave to file a 

reply brief of up to 7,000 words. 

A copy of the reply brief is attached to Cossio's motion 

for leave.

Case: 12-1662 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2013
2 JOSE COSSIO v. AIR FORCE

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to withdraw Cossio’s motion to stay is 

granted.

 (2) Cossio’s motion for an extension of time is granted. 

 (3) Cossio's motion for leave is granted. The reply 

brief attached to the motion for leave is accepted for filing. 

 FOR THE COURT

 

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s25

Case: 12-1662 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2013