alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60906

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN ROBERT ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:06-CR-2-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Robert Anderson appeals from the statutory maximum sentence 

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the 

district court’s sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We 

affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Anderson argues that the district court 

procedurally erred in failing to provide a specific explanation for its above-

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60906 Document: 00513645714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2016
No. 15-60906

2

guidelines sentence. Reviewing his argument for plain error only, see United 

States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009), we hold that the record 

discloses no clear or obvious error on the part of the district court in this regard. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Anderson also argues that the statutory maximum sentence was 

substantively unreasonable; however, the record reveals that Anderson did not 

comply with the conditions of his supervised release during the three terms 

that had already been imposed. He has pointed to nothing in the record to 

show that the district court’s sentence was an abuse of discretion. See United 

States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60906 Document: 00513645714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 124 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 124

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide incentives for 
 education on the risk of renal medullary carcinoma in individuals who 
 are receiving medical assistance under such title and who have Sickle 
                             Cell Disease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2021

Mr. Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide incentives for 
 education on the risk of renal medullary carcinoma in individuals who 
 are receiving medical assistance under such title and who have Sickle 
                             Cell Disease.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Byron Nash Renal Medullary Carcinoma 
Awareness Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR EDUCATION ON RISK OF RENAL MEDULLARY 
              CARCINOMA TO INDIVIDUALS WITH SICKLE CELL DISEASE UNDER 
              MEDICAID.

    (a) In General.--Section 1903(a)(3)(E)(ii) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(3)(E)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``, renal 
medullary carcinoma,'' after ``stroke'' each place it appears.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to items and services furnished on or after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr. the Chief Executive Officer of ReGen
Biologics, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection
with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2008 (the
“Report”). The undersigned hereby certifies that:
  (1) 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.
  Date:
August 8, 2008
  /s/
      GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.Name:
              Gerald
      E. Bisbee, Jr.Title:
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our reports dated June 14, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedule and internal control over financialreporting included in the Annual Report of Rentrak Corporation and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of RentrakCorporation and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File Nos.; 333-28565, effective June 5, 1997; 333-39021, effective October 29, 1997; 333-62523, effective August 31, 1998; 333-110781, effective November 26, 2003; 333-110782, effectiveNovember 26, 2003; 333-136466, effective August 9, 2006; and 333-163120 effective November 13, 2009). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Portland, Oregon 

June 14,2010
#### IN RE: Arthur Sean WARNER, Petitioner.

No. 17-1655

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Arthur Sean Warner, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Sean Warner petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and supplemental motions. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our. review of the district court’s docket reveals that, on June 1, 2017, the district court dismissed Warner’s § 2255 motion and acted on his supplemental motions. Because the district court has recently decided Warner’s case, we deny this portion of his mandamus petition as moot.

Warner also seeks an order compelling the district court to show cause why he is not entitled to the relief he seeks in his motions. We conclude that Warner is not entitled to mandamus relief on this ground. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal, *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny this portion of Warner’s mandamus petition.

We dispense with oral argument because the .facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
Rex Dewayne GAINEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4477

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Gregory BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karina CASTILLO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16517

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed March 1, 2017

Gregory Banks, Pro Se

Shirley Blazich, Michael McLoughlin, LeAnn Sanders, Trial Attorney, Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen *&*Sanders, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Gregory Banks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need arising out of his pretrial detention at Clark County Detention Center. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

*571Summary judgment was proper on Banks’s deliberate indifference claim because under - any potentially applicable standard Banks failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of or disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Banks’s health. *See Toguchi,*391 F.3d at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; neither a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); *Lolli v. Cty. of Orange,*351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but same standards apply); *cf. Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1996
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,000
<PP&E>                                         1,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 953,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          375,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       133,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,160,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   953,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               249,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (249,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (63,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (186,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (186,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



(18 U.S.C. 1350)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk Communications Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:



(1)         This  Amendment
No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)           The
information contained in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  April 29, 2012 | /s/ Steven van der Velden                                   
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Steven van der Velden, President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification shall not be deemed
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange
Act.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-360-CV

MIKE BISMAR, M.D.	APPELLANT

	V.

DOROTHY A. MOREHEAD, 	APPELLEES

VAUGHN R. MOREHEAD, AND 

JAMES P. MOREHEAD, III, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIRS AT LAW 

OF GLORIA MOREHEAD, DECEASED

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

	FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Mike Bismar, M.D. is attempting to appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the underlying medical malpractice lawsuit.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

	Bismar moved to dismiss appellees’ suit on the ground that their expert report was inadequate.2  This court has held that an order denying a motion to dismiss based on the alleged inadequacy of an expert report is not appealable by interlocutory appeal.3  Consequently, we notified Bismar by letter that his appeal was subject to dismissal unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.4  Although Bismar has filed a response, it does not state grounds for continuing the appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.	

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  November 29, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the
undersigned officers of MPM Technologies Inc (the "Company"), certifies that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended  December 31,
2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

MPM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

/s/ Michael J. Luciano
----------------------
Michael J. Luciano
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
September 30, 2005

This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.


<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the  requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
Act of 1934,  the  registrant  has duly  caused  this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized


MPM TECHNOLOGIES INC.

By: /s/ Michael J. Luciano
   -----------------------

Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: September 30, 2005

Pursuant to the  requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
Act of 1934,  the  registrant  has duly  caused  this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

/s/ Michael J. Luciano                      /s/ Glen Hjort
-----------------------                     -------------------
Michael J. Luciano                          Glen Hjort
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer          Chief Financial Officer & Director
Dated:  June 29, 2005                       Dated:  June 29, 2005


/s/ Frank E. Hsu                            /s/ Daniel D. Smozanek
------------------                          --------------------------
Frank E. Hsu                                Daniel D. Smozanek
Chief Operating Officer & Director          Treasurer & Director
Dated:  June 29, 2005                       Dated:  June 29, 2005


/s/ Richard E. Appleby                      /s/ L. Craig Cary Smith
--------------------------                  ---------------------------
Richard E. Appleby                          L. Craig Cary Smith
Vice President & Director                   Director
Dated:  June 29, 2005                       Dated:  June 29, 2005


/s/ Richard Kao
---------------
Richard Kao
Director
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Argonaut Group, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark W. Haushill, as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERTIFIED this 10thday of March, 2006.



/s/ Mark W. HaushillMark W. HaushillSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Delivrance DELIEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3373

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1

       
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                      2297081
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               1234915
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  24327
<INVENTORY>                                                 5188809
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            8775003
<PP&E>                                                      1265784 
<DEPRECIATION>                                               655209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             14250563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       1583159
<BONDS>                                                     1455202      
<COMMON>                                                      45043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                    6500
<OTHER-SE>                                                 11160660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               14250563
<SALES>                                                     6991288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            6991288
<CGS>                                                       5156600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               3184248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              (3346)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            (9381)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (1387455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (1387455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (1387455)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (.31)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-81709, 333-95355, 333-38434, 333-47454)
and Form S-3 (Reg. Nos. 333-41540, 333-48360) of Digital Island, Inc. of our
report dated November 10, 2000 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated November 10, 2000 relating to the financial statement
schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Francisco, California
December 28, 2000
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40138 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EUGENIO MONTOYA

- CARILLO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 775

- 1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eugenio Montoya

Carillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Montoya

- Carillo h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an d the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 August 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40138 Document: 00515072351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2019No. 19

- 40138

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40138 Document: 00515072351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2019