alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10377

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIAM EARL CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

L. WOODS, Warden; KALMANOV, Dr.; EASON,

Health Administrator; UGAZ, Dr.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:96-CV-240-X

- - - - - - - - - -

October 31, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Earl Cunningham, Texas prisoner #643591, appeals

from the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint as frivolous. 

Cunningham seeks appointment of counsel on appeal; his motion is

DENIED. Cunningham’s motion for emergency medical care also is

DENIED. Cunningham contends that prison officials and the

University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) staff were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs, resulting in severe
No. 97-10377

-2-

pain in his right eyeball and lower right side, severe headaches,

dizziness, mild seizures, and blurred vision in his left eye. He

argues that prison officials allowed his left-eye vision to

deteriorate to hinder his ability to prosecute the current

lawsuit.

Cunningham raises his allegation of seizures and his

contention that officials were motivated by a desire to hinder

his lawsuit for the first time on appeal. Whether Cunningham

suffered seizures and whether prison officials were motivated by

a desire to hinder his lawsuit are factual issues. Cunningham

can show no plain error because the district court did not

consider the factual issues he raises the first time on appeal. 

Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

Cunningham’s testimony at his hearing pursuant to Spears v.

McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (1985), indicated that Cunningham received

treatment for his eye problems and pain in his side and that

Cunningham merely disagreed with the treatment he received. The

district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing

Cunningham’s complaint as frivolous. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920

F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

Cunningham’s appeal is frivolous and therefore is dismissed. 

We caution Cunningham that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. 

To avoid sanctions, Cunningham is further cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that
No. 97-10377

-3-

are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6407

LEONARD H. ARLINE, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus L. KELLY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00261-HEH) Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 24, 2007 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard H. Arline, Appellant Pro Se. Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leonard H. Arline seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Arline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Form of Waiver to Subordinated Unsecured Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FORM OF WAIVER 
 The undersigned, the holder (the “Holder”) of that
certain Subordinated Unsecured Promissory Note dated as of July 31, 2009, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Subordinated Unsecured Promissory Note dated as of April 30, 2010, made by Great American Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) in the original aggregate principal amount of $[        ] (as amended, the “Note”), hereby agrees to an extension of the payment due date for the principal payment
due under the Note on July 31, 2011 until [August 31, 2011/October 15, 2011/December 15, 2011]. Interest shall continue to accrue on the unpaid principal amount of the Note at [three and three quarters/twelve] percent ([3.75/12.0]%)
as set forth in the Note and not at the Default Rate (as that term is defined in the Note), and the Note may continue to be prepaid in whole or in part by the Company without penalty in accordance with Section 2 of the Note. Nothing in this
Waiver shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of compliance by the Company with any other term or provision of the Note, including payments of principal required to be made by the undersigned on any date other than July 31, 2011 and any
payments of interest required to be made to the undersigned. 
 The waiver set forth above shall be limited precisely as written. Except as
expressly set forth herein, the terms, provisions and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Dated:
[July 29, 2011/August 3, 2011] 
  

	
	[                              
          ]
	
	[                              
                  ]


 Agreed and Accepted by: 
 GREAT AMERICAN GROUP, INC. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /S/ PAUL ERICKSON

		 	  Paul Erickson, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 IMRGLOBAL CORP.
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                                      Year Ended December 31,
                                                 --------------------------------
                                                   1998        1997         1996
                                                 --------    --------    --------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>         <C>     
Net income ...................................   $ 18,909    $ 11,895    $  2,588
                                                 ========    ========    ========
BASIC:
   Weighted average common share outstanding .     28,033      24,129      15,458
                                                 ========    ========    ========

   Basic earnings per share ..................   $   0.67    $   0.49    $   0.17
                                                 ========    ========    ========
DILUTED:
   Common Shares .............................     28,033      24,129      15,458
   Stock Option Plans
      Shares under option at year-end ........     10,073      10,756      11,438
      Treasury Shares which could be purchased       (533)       (418)       (525)
                                                 --------    --------    --------
Weighted average common and
   common equivalent shares outstanding ......     37,573      34,467      26,371
                                                 ========    ========    ========

Diluted earnings per share ...................   $   0.50    $   0.35    $   0.10
                                                 ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16681-16682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07160]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.)

[[Page 16682]]

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable 
statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to 
acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to 
vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and 
nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the 
companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 24, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior 
Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. WCM-Parkway, Ltd., WCM Holdings, Inc., and Veritex Holdings, 
Inc., all in Dallas, Texas; to merge with IBT Bancorp, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Independent Bank of Texas, both in Irving, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 25, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-07160 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit 31.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen E. Sterrett, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Simon Property Group, L.P.;

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;

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;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for
the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



Date: March 12, 2010/s/STEPHEN E. STERRETT Stephen E. Sterrett
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner


124

---



QuickLinks
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 5, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60628 Summary Calendar

VICTOR B. KEARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus J. STEWART PARRISH; JOHN DOES, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 4:03-CV-190-BN

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Victor B. Kearley, Mississippi prisoner #16946, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Kearley’s claim that counsel’s actions in defending him were done under color of state law, thereby making counsel liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for ineffective assistance, is without merit. Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312 (1981). Nor has Kearley stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim upon whichNo. 03-60628 -2- relief could be granted, as he has failed to plead the operative facts upon which his claim is based. See Lynch v. Cannatella , 810 F.2d 1363, 1369-70 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Kane Enters. v. MacGregor (USA) Inc. , 322 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2003). Because Kearley did not allege in the district court that the state public defender system was unconstitutional, this court need not consider this claim. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Kearley’s argument that the district judge lacked jurisdiction due to an administrative order of reassignment to another judge is without merit. Kearley’s appeal is without merit and is therefore DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal of the complaint by the district court as frivolous both count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Kearley is therefore CAUTIONED that once he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). All outstanding motions are DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS
DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted), Bruce D. Horn, the Chief Financial Officer of Oplink
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2002,
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic Report")
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: September 30, 2002

  /s/ Bruce Horn
-----------------------------
Bruce D. Horn
Chief Financial Officer

     This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00323-CV

IN RE JENNIFER VILLARREAL

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV06504

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016

DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal stating they have reached a 

settlement. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a), 43.2(f). Costs 

of appeal are taxed against the parties who have incurred them.

PER CURIAM
# C_2016105EN.01000901.xml

| 19.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 March 2016

(2016/C 105/07)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1279 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4542 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77855 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2773 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0919 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4111 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,035 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,32 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2625 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4718 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2218 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4804 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4627 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7464 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6550 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5277 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 306,11 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,2024 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3037 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5305 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 754,09 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5716 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,351 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,0498 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,296 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0794 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,4683 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,7625 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1279

JPY

Japanese yen

125,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4542

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77855

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2773

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0919

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4111

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,035

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,32

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2625

RON

Romanian leu

4,4718

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2218

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4804

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4627

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7464

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6550

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5277

KRW

South Korean won

1 306,11

ZAR

South African rand

17,2024

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3037

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5305

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 754,09

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5716

PHP

Philippine peso

52,351

RUB

Russian rouble

76,0498

THB

Thai baht

39,296

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0794

MXN

Mexican peso

19,4683

INR

Indian rupee

74,7625

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SIMON
DEBARTOLO GROUP, LP'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          64,309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  172,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,692
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       5,301,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                 279,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,895,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      3,681,984
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,945,174<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,895,910
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               747,704
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  416,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                134,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                   134,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            134,663
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,521)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   131,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.99<F3>
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant does not use a classified balance sheet.
<F2>The Registrant is a partnership.  The amount is partners' equity.
<F3>Because the Registrant is a partnership, this amount is earnings per unit of
partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. FELIPE DE JESUS C HAVOYA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50196

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-04537-B EN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Fe lipe de Je sus C hav oy a

a ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha lle nge s the 42-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# F IL ED MAR 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C havoy a c o n te nds tha t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

b le in light of his history

an d c irc um sta

nc e s. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in im posing C havoy a ’ s se nte nc e . Se e Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The a bove -Guide l ine s se nte nc e is substa ntive l y re a sona ble in light of the

tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s a n d the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) se nte nc i ng fa c tors. Se e Gall , 552 U.S. at 51; se e also United State s v . Gutie r

re z-Sanc h e z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ The we ight to begive n the va rious fa c tors in a

pa rtic ula r c a s e is for the disc re tion of thedistric t c o urt.” ). AFFIRM E D .

1 4 - 5 0 1 9 6 2