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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 01-21262

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANNON MAYFIELD,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. H-01-CR-204-1

--------------------

January 10, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shannon Mayfield appeals his conviction of, and sentence

for, aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute

cocaine. Mayfield argues that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction, because there was no evidence that he
No. 01-21262 

-2-

knew of the presence of the cocaine in his vehicle. He also

contends that he should not have received a two-level adjustment

under the Sentencing Guidelines for obstruction of justice.

Because Mayfield did not renew his motion for a judgment of

acquittal at the close of evidence, our review of the sufficiency

of the evidence is limited to determining whether there was a

manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Johnson, 87

F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996). In light of the ample evidence of

Mayfield’s knowing involvement in the cocaine transaction, this

standard has not been met. 

The district court did not clearly err in determining that

Mayfield had committed perjury and suborned perjury at trial,

thus warranting the adjustment for obstruction of justice. See

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th

Cir. 1994). This determination did not impinge on Mayfield’s

right to defend himself. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S.

87, 96 (1993); United States v. Como, 53 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir.

1995).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Antuan Burress-EL, :

:

Plaintiff(s) :

: Case Number: 1:18cv254

vs. :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

David Kelley, et al., :

:

Defendant(s) :

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Stephanie K. Bowman filed on April 12. 2018 (Doc. 4), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such

objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired April 26, 2018, hereby ADOPTS said Report and

Recommendation. 

However, the plaintiff did file three “notices” but the Court did not construe them to be

objections.

Accordingly, all claims contained in plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). In addition plaintiff has filed several lawsuits that relate to

claims arising out of Hamilton County Juvenile Court proceedings. Plaintiff is FOREWARNED that

additional attempts to file similar lawsuits will not only be summarily dismissed at the screening level,

but may invite sanctions from the Court if deemed vexatious.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________

Judge Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court
State ofWisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 101 S. Webster Street Box 7921 Madison WI 53707-7921

January 29, 2016
Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator USEPA Region 5, Rl9J 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago IL 60604-3507 Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary Telephone 608·266-2621**~:10ol.kd..J::::::"~~~** FAX 608-267-3579 TTY Access via relay- 711 ..._ ______ _

Subject: Year 2015 Sulfur Dioxide Data Certification for the Green Bay-East High (55-009-0005) Site Dear Ms. Hedman: Enclosed you will fmd an AMP600 Certification and Evaluation Concun·ence, AMP251 QA RawAssessment and AMP256 Data Quality Indicator reports dated January 29, 2016 that summarize the sulfur dioxide data from Wisconsin's GreenBay-EastHigh (55-009-0005) site. The Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR)'s Bureau ofAirManagementused these reports to review the 2015 sulfur dioxide data that was submitted to the US EPAAQS database for tltis site. This report includes data collected from January I, 2015 through December 31, 2015. In compliance with paragraph (c) of40 CFR 58.1 5(a), I certify thatthe ambient air data and quality assurance data submittedbythe Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (Reporting Organization 1175) are submitted completely to AQS and ambient monitoring data are accurate to the best ofmy knowledge, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings. Per EPA's request, we are submittingthis certification electronically. Ifyou have any questions about this data, please contact GrantHetherington at (608) 266-1552.

Gail Good Director Bureau ofAir Management Attachments: AMP600- Certification and Evaluation Concurrence Report AMP251

- QARawAssessment Report AMP256- Data QualityIndicator Report
cc: Anthony Ross- USEPA Region 5, Air Monitoring Section (AR-18J) (electronic) Michael Compher- USEPA Region 5, Air Monitoring Section (AR-18J) (electronic) Pat Stevens

- AD/8 (letter only) Bart Sponseller

- AM/7 (electronic) Grant Hetherington

- AM/7 dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov 

## Natumlly

## WISCONSIN
FORM 10-K


Exhibit 23.01





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-62724, 333-67424 and 333-105497) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-88543, 333-95713, 333-35738, 333-44768, 333-61218, 333-63900, 333-67730, 333-86324, 333-102771, 333-105498, 333-113856, 333-123377, 333-132490, 333-141370, 333-151188, 333-158676, 333-166338, 333-168405 and 333-170093) of (1) our report dated February 16, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Silicon Image, Inc., and (2) our report dated February 16, 2011, relating to the effectiveness of Silicon Image Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Silicon Image, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
 San Jose, California
 
 February 16, 2011
Neffs Bancorp, Inc. 10-K




EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with this annual report on Form 10-K, that:





§
the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and


§
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.








/s/ John J. Remaley


John J. Remaley, Chief Executive Officer








Dated:  March 22, 2010
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 449 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the availability of health 

care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs by adjusting the 

income level for certain priority veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the availability of health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs by adjusting the income level for certain 

priority veterans. 

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 ‘‘Health Care for Amer5 ica’s Heroes Act’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 449 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH CARE 

2 PROVIDED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AF3 FAIRS BY ADJUSTING THE INCOME LEVEL 

4 FOR CERTAIN PRIORITY VETERANS. 

5 (a) ADJUSTMENT OF INCOME LEVEL.—Subsection 

6 (a)(7) of section 1705 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘who are eligible for treatment as 

8 a low-income family’’ and inserting ‘‘whose incomes do not 

9 exceed 200 percent of the maximum income of a family 

10 that is eligible for treatment as a low-income family’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to patient enroll13 ments in the system of annual patient enrollment under 

14 section 1705 of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal 

15 years beginning on or after the date of the enactment of 

16 this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,636-01

EX PARTE GERALD RAY MCHAM, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 241-0469-15-A IN THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM SMITH COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to life 

imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. McHam v. State, No. 12-16-

00015-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler, Sep. 14, 2016) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded

it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

On January 8, 2020, the trial court entered an order designating issues. The district clerk

properly forwarded this application to this Court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

73.4(b)(5). However, the application was forwarded before the trial court made findings of fact and

conclusions of law. We remand this application to the trial court to complete its evidentiary
investigation and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court. 

Filed: April 13, 2022

Do not publish
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Bruce D. EskowitzBruce D. EskowitzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2008/s/ Harold W. IngallsHarold W. IngallsChief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2008
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

 

Cathy Cooper, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 3:17-cv-374 

v. Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, (ECF 17), ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

(ECF 15), REMANDING TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION CONSISTENT 

WITH THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND TERMINATING 

CASE. 

Plaintiff Cathy Cooper filed an action in this Court seeking judicial review of a prior 

decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff’s 

application for Social Security benefits. United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

filed a Report and Recommendations (ECF 15) recommending that the Commissioner=s decision 

be vacated and remanded to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g) for further consideration. The Commissioner has filed an objection to the Report and 

Recommendations. (ECF 17). 

As required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court 
2

has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that the 

Report and Recommendation is correct. Wherefore, the Court ADOPTS Report and 

Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, (ECF 15), DENIES

the Objection of the Commissioner, (ECF 17); REMANDS this case to the Social Security 

Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent 

with this Report and Recommendations,1

 and TERMINATES this case on the dockets of the 

District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton. 

DONE and ORDERED this Friday, November 15, 2019. 

s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1 No finding is hereby made as to whether Plaintiff was under a “disability” within the 

meaning of the Social Security Act.
FREUND, FREEZE & ARNOLD

A Legal Professional Association

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

SABRINA JORDAN, ADM'R OF THE 

ESTATE OF JAMARCO DEWAYNE 

MCSHANN

Plaintiff

v.

OFFICER JOHN HOWARD, et al.

Defendants

*

*

*

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00082

Judge Thomas M. Rose

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION

Now come Defendants, by and through counsel, and respectfully request a seven (7) day 

extension to reply to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment. (Doc #25)

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum is currently due December 24, 2019. Defendants request 

an extension of time until December 31, 2019, due to the press of business. The request is made 

in good faith, will not unfairly prejudice any party, and has not been made for the purpose of undue 

delay or harassment.

Pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. Rule 7.3, Defendants have consulted with Plaintiff and there is 

no objection to the request for extension of time.

Case: 3:18-cv-00082-TMR Doc #: 26 Filed: 12/18/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1135
- 2 -

FREUND, FREEZE & ARNOLD

A Legal Professional Association

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Neil F. Freund________________

Neil F. Freund (0012183)

Kelly M. Schroeder (0080637)

FREUND, FREEZE & ARNOLD

Fifth Third Center

1 South Main Street, Suite 1800

Dayton, OH 45402-2017

Phone (937) 222-2424

Fax (937) 222-5369

nfreund@ffalaw.com

kschroeder@ffalaw.com

Counsel for Defendants

Kimberly A. Rutowski

Lazarus & Lewis, LLC

915 Cincinnati Club Building 

30 Garfield Place

Cincinnati, OH 45202-4322

krutowski@hllmlaw.com

Co-Counsel for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served this 18th day of 

December 2019, via electronic mail and/or regular U.S. Mail upon the following:

Sarah Gelsomino - sgelsomino@f-glaw.com

Jacqueline C. Greene – jgreene@f-glaw.com

Terry Gilbert – tgilbert@f-glaw.com

Marcus Sidoti – marcus@jordansidoti.com

/s/ Neil F. Freund_____________

Neil F. Freund

Case: 3:18-cv-00082-TMR Doc #: 26 Filed: 12/18/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1136
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:18cr65
DAMONE ALEXANDER, : JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS (DOC. #24)

Defendant has filed a motion, seeking an order of the Court suppressing any and all
statements and evidence in the captioned cause (Doc. #24). An oral and evidentiary hearing was
held on the aforesaid motion, over two days, to wit: November 6 and November 30, 2018.

Pursuant to the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Government’s
memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s motion to suppress statements and evidence (Doc.
#32), as well as upon a thorough review of the transcripts of the oral and evidentiary hearing
referenced above and, further, based upon a thorough review of the applicable law, this Court
OVERRULES said motion in its entirety.

A telephone conference call will be arranged by this Court’s Courtroom Deputy, at a date

and time during the week of March 4, 2018.

ef .%
L Nene PS
March 4, 2019 WALTER H. RICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Copies to:

Counsel of record
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Zaxis International Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”), as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivo Heiden, President, CFOand Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo Heiden President, CFO and ChairmanDated: May 16, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zaxis International Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 4, 2017.

________________

No. 3D16- 1844

Lower Tribunal No. 15-28620

________________



### Ryan Escobar,

Appellant,

vs.



### Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto

, Judge.

Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellant.

Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Berard Rockenbach and David A.

Noel (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin, P.A., and Stephen A. Marino, Jr., Benjamin C.

Hassebrock and Andrew M. Shapiro, for United Policyholders, as amicus curiae.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.Ryan Escobar, the plaintiff below, appeals an order granting final summary

judgment in favor of his insurer, Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company. Upon

Tower Hill’s commendable confession of error, and because genuine issues of

material fact exist as to the amount of the actual cash value of the insured loss at

hand, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand the case to the trial court

for further proceedings. See § 627.7011(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“In the event of a

loss for which a dwelling

. . . is insured on the basis of replacement costs

. . . the

insurer must initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any

applicable deductible.”); Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co.

, 3D16-1861, at

*10-11 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 30, 2017) (reversing final summary judgment in favor

of Tower Hill, concluding “[w]e find no support in Slayton[ v. Universal Property

and Casualty Insurance Co.

, 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)]

— or any other

authority Tower Hill cites

— for the proposition that the insurer is able to

unilaterally determine, as a matter of law, actual cash value or replacement cost

value” by simply paying its own independent adjuster’s estimate of the insured

loss, less the deductible) (footnote omitted); Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co.

,

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1565 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017) (reversing final summary

judgment in favor of insurer where “widely-divergent estimates of covered repair

costs created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment

regarding the roof leak claims,” expressly rejecting insurer’s argument that its

2payment of its own adjuster’s estimate less the deductible entitled it to summary

judgment under Slayton ).

Reversed and remanded.

3
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 585 

Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2020, as ‘‘Silver Star 

Service Banner Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2020 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mr. HAWLEY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2020, 

as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’. 

Whereas the Senate has always honored the sacrifices made 

by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent the members of the Armed Forces and veterans 

who were wounded or became ill in combat in the wars 

fought by the United States; 

Whereas the Silver Star Families of America was formed to 

help the people of the United States remember the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of the 

Armed Forces by designing and manufacturing Silver 

Star Service Banners and Silver Star Flags for that purpose; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 585 ATS 

Whereas the sole mission of the Silver Star Families of 

America is to evoke memories of the sacrifices made by 

members of the Armed Forces and veterans on behalf of 

the United States through the presence of a Silver Star 

Service Banner in a window or a Silver Star Flag flying; 

Whereas the sacrifices made by members of the Armed 

Forces and veterans on behalf of the United States 

should never be forgotten; and 

Whereas May 1, 2020, is an appropriate date to designate as 

‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the designation of May 1, 2020, as 

3 ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’; and 

4 (2) calls upon the people of the United States 

5 to observe Silver Star Service Banner Day with ap6 propriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS