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

File Name: 16a0638n.06

No. 16-1323

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

STRYKER SALES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY McNANY, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE WESTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

ORDER

Before: MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

Defendants Johnny McNany and Integra Lifesciences Corporation appeal the district 

court’s Order of February 12, 2016, in which it preliminarily enjoined them from engaging in 

certain sales activities competitive to Plaintiff Stryker Sales Corporation until September 15, 

2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). While this appeal was pending, Stryker moved the district 

court to extend the life of the injunction to June 30, 2017. The district court denied this request, 

thereby allowing the injunction to expire as scheduled. 

Because “there generally is nothing for an appellate court to review” once an injunction 

order expires, the Court directed the parties to file simultaneous letter briefs discussing whether 

this appeal was moot. Appalachian Reg’l Healthcare, Inc. v. Coventry Health & Life Ins. Co., 

714 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “[a] case is moot ‘when the issues presented 

 

*

The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by 

designation.
No. 16-1323, Stryker Sales v. McNany, et al.

2

are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting 

Hodges v. Schlinkert Sports Assocs., Inc., 89 F.3d 310, 312 (6th Cir. 1996))); see also 

McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[O]ur 

jurisdiction extends only to actual cases and controversies. We have no power to adjudicate 

disputes which are moot.” (quoting Crane v. Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 975 F.2d 1315, 1218 

(7th Cir. 1992))).

Stryker argues that this appeal is moot. Although McNany and Integra agree that their 

appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction order is now moot, they nevertheless urge the 

Court to consider the choice of law issue that informed the district court’s choice of law analysis, 

arguing that it is in the interest of judicial efficiency to do so. However, McNany and Integra fail 

to recognize that, because their interlocutory appeal is moot, this Court now lacks jurisdiction to 

consider the matter. See McPherson, 119 F.3d at 458.

For the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

__________________________________

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk
Abatement Order filed February 3, 2022. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00812-CR

____________

RICARDO VALDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1513682

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel on appeal, Andrew J. Smith. 

On January 24, 2022, counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel 

because he has been appointed to serve as a Felony Associate Judge. Accordingly, 

we enter the following order. 

We ORDER the judge of the 174th District Court to consider counsel’s 

request to withdraw. If current counsel is permitted to withdraw, the judge shall 

appoint new appellate counsel for appellant. The judge shall order the trial clerk to 

forward a record of the supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders 

permitting counsel to withdraw and appointing new counsel to the clerk of this 
2

court. The judge shall see that a record of any hearing is made and shall order the 

reporter to forward a record of the hearing, if any, to the clerk of this court. The 

supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record, if any, shall be filed within 30 

days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      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 Deltic Timber Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron
L. Pearce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/Ron L. Pearce

Ron L. Pearce
Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2003
Order entered December 8, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00682-CV

SUSAN ANN FISHER, Appellant

V.

MEDICAL CENTER OF PLANO, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-01240-2016

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 15, 2016 “Motion to Preserve All Records and 

Recordings in 05-16-00682-CV and in All Appeals from 296th District Court Case 296-01024-

2014.” We DENY the motion.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2936 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2936

To amend the CARES Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
 the treatment of related individuals under the employee retention tax 
                                credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2021

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the CARES Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
 the treatment of related individuals under the employee retention tax 
                                credit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF RELATED INDIVIDUALS UNDER EMPLOYEE RETENTION 
              TAX CREDIT.

    (a) Amendments to CARES Act.--
            (1) In general.--Section 2301(e) of the Coronavirus Aid, 
        Relief, and Economic Security Act is amended by inserting 
        ``(applied without regard to the phrase `(determined with the 
        application of section 267(c))' in subparagraph (A) thereof)'' 
        after ``51(i)(1)''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
        shall apply to wages paid after March 12, 2020.
    (b) Amendment to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
            (1) In general.--Section 3134(e) of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(applied without regard 
        to the phrase `(determined with the application of section 
        267(c))' in subparagraph (A) thereof)'' after ``51(i)(1)''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
        shall apply to wages paid after June 30, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
ACCEPTED

14-15-00015-cv

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/13/2015 12:41:12 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/13/2015 12:41:12 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2959

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa

Jerry Gary, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2004

Filed: August 18, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Gary appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for the

Northern District of Iowa upon revocation of his supervised release. The district

court sentenced Gary to 24 months imprisonment and 1 year supervised release. For

reversal, Gary argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him

above the suggested Guidelines range so that he could complete the Bureau of Prisons
-2-

(BOP) drug-treatment program and that the district court improperly delegated its

authority to the BOP to decide whether Gary will be provided drug treatment in

prison. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Upon careful review, we reject Gary’s arguments. The length of his sentence

was not an abuse of discretion, because the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the

Guidelines are not binding on the district court, see United States v. Touche, 323 F.3d

1105, 1107 (8th Cir. 2003), and the court based its decision upon relevant sentencing

factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cf. United States v. Shaw, 180 F.3d 920, 923 (8th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (revocation sentence of 24 months imprisonment and 3 years

supervised release, which exceeded suggested Guidelines range, was not abuse of

discretion where defendant repeatedly violated terms of supervision, and court

desired that defendant receive long-term intensive treatment for drug and alcohol

abuse and mental health treatment in highly structured environment). The district

court did not improperly delegate its authority because the BOP has sole authority to

determine which prisoners will participate in the drug-treatment program. See United

States v. Jackson, 70 F.3d 874, 877-78 (6th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 32.1(1)**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Joshua Pickus, the chief executive officer of SupportSoft, Inc.(the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 oftitle 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,

 
| (i)    |   | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements  of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| (ii)   |   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company.                                                                            |

 

 
| Date: August 7, 2008 | /s/ JOSHUA  PICKUS                         |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                      | **Joshua  Pickus**                         |
|                      | **Chief  Executive Officer and President** |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. §1350 has been provided to SupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained bySupportSoft, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----

| (1) |   | The  material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed “filed” with the  SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company  under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general  incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that  the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference. |
|-----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
Exhibit 13.2  Section 906 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), the undersigned officer of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, a chartered corporation incorporated under the laws of Ireland (Bank of Ireland), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the twelve months ended December 31, 2013 (the Report) of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank of Ireland.   Date: 28 March 2014Name: Andrew KeatingTitle: Group Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015257EN.01000801.xml

| 6.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/8

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 257/06)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

To celebrate thirty years of the EU flag, euro-area Finance Ministers decided that euro-area Member States would strike a 2-euro commemorative coin using a common design on the national side. Euro-area citizens and residents have selected by public web-voting the winning design. Voters had a choice of five designs, which had been pre-selected by a professional jury following a design competition among European Mints, and they choose the design created by Mr Georgios Stamatopoulos, professional designer at the Bank of Greece.

Issuing country
  : Cyprus

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The 30th anniversary of the EU flag

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The designs shows the EU flag as a symbol that unites people and cultures with shared visions and ideals for a better common future. Twelve stars that morph into human figures are embracing the birth of a new Europe. At the top right, in semi-circle, are the name of the issuing country ‘ΚΥΠΡΟΣ KIBRIS’ and the years ‘1985-2015’. At the bottom right are the initials of the artist (Georgios Stamatopoulos).

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : 4th quarter 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
t '. ' .• : I f I t » » Lf. ) 

# HI S

February24 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHoo d Secretary Unite d State s Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E 

### Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretaryLaHood : A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro fAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor t o fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e ne wservic e fro m Ne wYork' s Joh n F
. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor tan d Lo s Angele s Internationa l Airpor t t o Toky o Internationa l Airpor t a t Haneda
. I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe ri n reachin g a landmar k

Ope n Skie s agreemen t wit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a t o servic e b yU.S
. airlines
. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m Ne wYor k an d Lo s Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o fth e world' s financia l an d commerc e centers
. Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o fJapa n Airlines ' oneworl d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen tt o th e trans-Pacifi cmarket
. America n i s likewis e committe d t o Ne wYor k

an d Los Angle s - bot h vita l foca l point s o fbusiness , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n

- providin g unsurpasse d ai rservic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s Bot h th e Ne wYor k

an d Lo s Angele s metr o area s wil l gai n significan teconomi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a

s wil l American' s customer s an d employees
. However , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak e th e JFK/Haned a connectio n a reality
. Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sa yye s t o America n Airline s an d it s reques tfo rslot s t o fl yfro m Kenned yt o Haneda ! Sincerely , _

_^- ^ 

# %S-^' 0 O^^ic eBranc hl\Aam^ ' Urn / \yUiatC i H.I.S
. Internationa l Tour s (NY) , Inc
.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00660-CV

IN RE Salatiel POLANCO d/b/a D&C Trucking

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus on October 10, 2016, complaining of a trial 

court order compelling Relator to respond to discovery and present himself for a deposition. 

A party seeking mandamus relief bears the burden of providing the appellate court with a 

record sufficient to establish the party’s right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 

(Tex. 1992). The record should include a properly authenticated transcript if there was an 

evidentiary hearing and “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 

relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX.R. APP. 52.7(a)(1); 

Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837.

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 14-12-30420-MCV, styled Margarita Trevino, Individually and as 

Representative of the Estate of Melissa Trevino v. Salatiel Polanco d/b/a D & C Trucking, Highway Barricades and 

Services, L.L.C., Anderson Columbia Co., Inc., and Flasher Equipment Co., pending in the 293rd Judicial District 

Court, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz presiding.
04-16-00660-CV

- 2 -

Relator filed no record with his petition for writ of mandamus and the documents contained 

in the appendix to his petition include only a copy of the order compelling discovery and copies 

of two pieces of correspondence that have no bearing on the merits of Relator’s petition for writ 

of mandamus. Relator has not provided this court with a record sufficient to establish his claim 

for relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
|Enron North America Corp.P.O. Box 1188Houston, TX 77251-1188
|------------------------------------------------------------

November 27, 2001

Mariner Energy, LLC
Mariner Holdings, Inc.
Mariner Energy, Inc.
580 WestLake Park Blvd., Suite 1300
Houston, Texas  77079
Ladies and Gentlemen:
        I hereby resign from my position as a member of the Board of Directors of each of Mariner Energy, LLC, Mariner Holdings, Inc.
and Mariner Energy, Inc. effective immediately.

| | Very truly yours,   
| | --------------------
| | /s/ C. John Thompson
| | C. John Thompson    

cc:  Kelly Zelikovitz
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00405-CV

IN RE MELISSA DAWSON RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 236-281814-15

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: SUDDERTH and GABRIEL, JJ.; and CHARLES BLEIL (Senior Justice, 

Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

DELIVERED: December 1, 2016

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
(March 30, 2004)

#### In the Matter of Mahmoud Alsafty, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[774 NYS2d 583]

*977Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2000 and maintained a law office in Baltimore, Maryland.

By order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, filed December 19, 2003, respondent was disbarred for practicing law in Maryland without being admitted to the Maryland bar. Petitioner moves to reciprocally discipline respondent pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed an affidavit in reply which does not establish any of the defenses to reciprocal discipline *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]). Respondent states that he believed that since he was admitted in New York, admitted to the federal court in Maryland and had taken the Maryland bar examination, he could practice law in Maryland. Respondent expresses sincere remorse for his misconduct.

Under the circumstances presented, we grant petitioner’s motion. We further conclude that the ends of justice will be served by suspending respondent from practice for a period of one year and until further order of this Court *(see e.g. Matter of Barneys,*304 AD2d 31 [2003]).

Crew III, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice for a period of one year, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, while so suspended from practice, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney and counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that, respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).