alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto REYNA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40056 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 1, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gilberto Reyna-Torres, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gilberto Reyna-Torres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyna-Torres has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is *299GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.
Christopher ROUNDTREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-508

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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








In connection with the Annual Report of
Cardtrend International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date here of (the "report"), I, King K. Ng, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated this 15th day of
April, 2009








KING K.
NG


King K.
Ng


Chief Executive
Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

DR. CEA G. MAI a/k/a KELLY E.S. 

ALIAHMED f/k/a HERMIONE 

KELLY I. WINTER, 

 

Petitioner Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

GOVERNOR CARNEY, et al., 

Respondents Below, 

Appellees.

§ 

§ No. 234, 2021 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. S21M-05-003 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

 

Submitted: November 12, 2021

 Decided: November 18, 2021 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,

Justices. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 

it appears to the Court that: 

(1) The petitioner below-appellant, Dr. Cea G. Mai a/k/a Kelly E.S. 

Aliahmed f/k/a Hermione Kelly I. Winter, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 

order denying her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her petition 

for a writ of mandamus. Mai filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this 

Court. The appellees opposed the motion, arguing that Mai made false 

representations in the motion, at least three actions that she previously filed were 
2

dismissed as frivolous, and she is not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

On September 10, 2021, the Court denied Mai’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

(2) On September 15, 2021, the Senior Court Clerk advised Mai that a 

notice to show cause would issue if she did not pay the filing fee by September 30, 

2021. Mai did not pay the filing fee. On October 11, 2021 and October 26, 2021, 

the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Mai to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for her failure to pay the filing fee.1

(3) In her response to the notice to show cause, Mai argues that if her appeal 

is dismissed she is unlikely to seek relief in federal court and would be affected 

personally. Other than her own conclusory statements, she does not offer anything 

to support these claims. Mai has not paid the filing fee. This appeal must therefore 

be dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice 

1

 The October 11, 2021 notice incorrectly stated that Mai had failed to file a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and was reissued on October 26, 2021 without that statement.
#### David H. Cole, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued October 4, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Action to recover damages sustained by plaintiff while a passenger upon defendant’s road. The cars ran off the track in consequence of a broken rail. Decided upon the ground that there was no evidence in the case showing any negligence or fault upon the part of the defendant.

*A. P. Laning*for the appellant.

*W. P. Cogswell*for the respondent.

Lott, Ch. C., and Hunt, C., read for affirmance.

Earl, C., reads for reversal.

For reversal, Earl, Leonard and Gray, OC.

For affirmance, Lott, Ch. C., and Hunt, C.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.
Hugh Rekeme MURRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-754

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 2018

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.
Richard O'BRIEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1145

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Edmund K. DAWES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3225

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.7


Executive Officer Compensation


The annual base salaries for our executive officers as of January 1, 2019 are as follows:


	
								
	Name
	 
	Title
	 
	 
	 

	Vivek Jain
	 
	Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$
	650,000
	

	 

	Christian Voigtlander
	 
	Chief Operating Officer
	 
	$
	420,000
	

	 

	Scott E. Lamb
	 
	Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$
	395,150
	

	 

	Alison D. Burcar
	 
	Corporate Vice President, Product Strategy IV Consumables
	 
	$
	315,000
	

	 

	Virginia Sanzone
	 
	Corporate Vice President, General Counsel
	 
	$
	300,000
EX PARTE Aaron Lamont JOHNSON

CR-16-0450

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Dick Buell, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ L. Dick Buell                                                 
|L. Dick Buell                                                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal
Executive Officer)
|August 9, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Michele O. Miller and Robert H. Steelhammer v. Green Bank, N.A.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00070-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-25547A

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

On January 21, 2019, appellant Michele O. Miller filed an unopposed motion to dismiss 

this appeal. She represented that “[a]ll other parties have agreed to this dismissal,” and she 

included a certificate of conference with the same representation.

Our review of the record in this case indicates that appellant Robert H. Steelhammer filed 

for bankruptcy on January 31, 2018 in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Case 

No. 18-30385).* Therefore, this appeal is stayed by the operation of the automatic stay in 

bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

The automatic stay in bankruptcy “deprives state courts of jurisdiction over the debtor 

and his property until the stay is lifted or modified.” Houston Pipeline Co. LP v. Bank of Am., 

N.A., 213 S.W.3d 418, 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (quoting Baytown 

State Bank v. Nimmons, 904 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ 

denied)). “An action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void, not merely voidable.” Cont’l 

Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., 751 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tex. 1988). At this time, the Court is 

without jurisdiction to rule on the unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. See id.

Until the parties notify the Court that the bankruptcy has been concluded or the 

bankruptcy trustee has lifted the stay for the purposes of this appeal and move to reinstate the 

case, the Court will take no further action other than to receive and hold any documents tendered 

during the period of suspension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

 

* See Docketing Statement (Feb. 15, 2018), Miller’s Third Unopposed Motion to Extend Briefing 

Deadline (June 11, 2018), Miller’s brief (July 11, 2018), Green Bank’s Unopposed Motion to 

Extend Briefing Deadline (Aug. 3, 2018), Green Bank’s Second Unopposed Motion to Extend 

Briefing Deadline (Sept. 6, 2018), and Green Bank’s brief (Nov. 9, 2018). 
Unless a party successfully moves to reinstate or sever, this appeal will be an inactive 

case on the Court’s docket. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Peter Kelly___

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __February 5, 2019__
#### Bruce Edward COMMITTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35386

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*608Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

Bruce Edward Committe, Pro Se

Patricia Kay Runkles-Pearson, Attorney, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Bruce Edward Committe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *France v. Johnson,*795 F.3d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Committe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Oregon State University’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for declining to hire him as a professor were pretextual. *See id.*at 1173-75 (explaining burden shifting framework for analyzing an ADEA claim on summary judgment, and setting forth plaintiffs burden in raising a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Committe’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed amendments would have been futile. *See Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.,*555 F.3d 1051, 1055, 1057 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “the ADEA precludes the assertion of age discrimination in employment claims, even those seeking to vindicate constitutional rights, under § 1983”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Committe’s motion for extraordinary relief (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.

The parties’ motions requesting no oral argument (Docket Entry Nos. 19 and 22) are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

***

»5⁄83⁄8 3⁄41⁄8 disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Charles PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3471

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### Christopher Anthony TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAY, named as Ofc Ray 6480; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17417

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 22, 2017

*542Christopher Anthony Torres, Pro Se

Clarence E. Matherson, Jr., Assistant Counsel, Phoenix City Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, 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 **

Christopher Anthony Torres, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during an arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim,*747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Trapp, Ray, and Blasko. Torres failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. *See Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco,*598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 2010) (framework for analyzing an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment). The undisputed facts demonstrate that defendants Trapp, Ray, and Blasko were aware that Torres was suspected of a violent crime earlier that day and Torres refused to surrender during an hours-long barricade situation in which defendants knew he had at least one weapon. Torres also does not dispute that he moved his hand from underneath his torso after being hit with the projectile launchers. Although Torres turned out to be unarmed, defendant Blasko did not know that at the time he deployed his Taser.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *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.
Jacob ALVESTAD v. Bruce HALL

1151023

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Mortons.

Date: May 5, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA  
|Ronald M. DiNella      
|Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03042]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 300


International Fisheries Regulations

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 228 to 599, 
revised as of October 1, 2021, in Sec.  300.21, the definition of 
``Vessel monitoring system (VMS)'' is reinstated to read as follows:


Sec.  300.21   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Vessel monitoring system (VMS) means an automated, remote system 
that provides information about a vessel's identity, location and 
activity, for the purposes of routine monitoring, control, surveillance 
and enforcement of area and time restrictions and other fishery 
management measures.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-03042 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alonso Rafael BARRERA-DELEON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41265 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee

Alonso Rafael Barrera-DeLeon, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alonso Rafael Barrera-Deleon *167has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Barrera-Deleon has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to -withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from- further responsibilities herein, and' the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *167published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
Bobby L. MAGWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4540

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Brian WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1001

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Marco M. TORRES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Honorable Herbert BERKOWITZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0511

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 10, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Upon consideration of petitioner's petition and appendix and the circuit court's order affirming the county court's dismissal of the underlying action, the petition for extraordinary writs is denied.

VILLANTI, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Christian GEDIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3640

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6187 

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to submit 

an annual report on oversight of fraud, waste, and abuse, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. FROST (for himself and Mr. MILLS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to submit an annual report on oversight of fraud, 

waste, and abuse, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Defense Spending 

5 Oversight Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6187 IH

1 SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DE2 FENSE ANNUAL REPORT ON OVERSIGHT OF 

3 FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE. 

4 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Inspector General of 

5 the Department of Defense shall submit to Congress and 

6 the Comptroller General of the United States a detailed 

7 annual report containing— 

8 (1) a description of the budget of the Depart9 ment of Defense, the total amount and dollar value 

10 of oversight investigations into fraud waste and 

11 abuse conducted by the Department of Defense Of12 fice of Inspector General, and the total amount and 

13 dollar value of oversight investigations into fraud, 

14 waste, and abuse conducted by the Offices of Inspec15 tor General of each of the military departments; 

16 (2) statistical tables showing— 

17 (A) the total number and dollar value of 

18 oversight investigations completed and pending, 

19 set forth separately by type of oversight inves20 tigation; 

21 (B) the priority given to each type of over22 sight investigation; 

23 (C) the length of time taken for each type 

24 of oversight investigation, both from the date of 

25 receipt of a qualified incurred cost submission 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6187 IH

1 and from the date the oversight investigation 

2 begins; 

3 (D) the aggregate cost of performing over4 sight investigations, set forth separately by type 

5 of oversight investigation; and 

6 (E) the total number and dollar value of 

7 oversight investigations that are pending for a 

8 period longer than one year as of the end of the 

9 fiscal year covered by the report, and the fiscal 

10 year in which the qualified submission was re11 ceived, set forth separately by type of oversight 

12 investigation; 

13 (3) a summary of any recommendations of ac14 tions or resources needed to improve the oversight 

15 investigation process; and 

16 (4) any other matters the Inspector General 

17 considers appropriate. 

18 (b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Each report submitted 

19 under subsection (a) shall be made publicly available. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
FOIA Requested Record #J-13-0031 

Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 4 of 5

Record Posted to NGB Reading Room 

13 June 14
FOIA Requested Record #J-13-0031 

Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 5 of 5

Record Posted to NGB Reading Room 

13 June 14