alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barbara Ann KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert DAVIS, Seaside Community Development Corp., Seaside Community Reality Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Doris Goldstein, Seaside I Homeowners Association Inc., et al., Defendants.

No. 15-15616

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 1, 2017)

Deborah Brand Baum, Gerald Zingone, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Washington, DC, Danny Richard Stengle, Dan R Stengle Attorney LLC—Tallahassee FI, Tallahassee FI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Robert A. Emmanuel, Emmanuel Sheppard & Condon, PA, Pensacola, FL, for Defendants-Appellees

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, FAY and PARKER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr„ United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The lawsuit in this case borders on the frivolous, if it does not cross that border. For the reasons set out in the district court’s orders granting summary judgment and the reasons emphasized by this Court during oral argument; we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.

AFFIRMED.
#### Leopold Mannaberg, Appellant, *v.*Ely Culbertson et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*D. F. McGlinchey*and *Jack Korshin*for motion.

*Gustave B. Garfield*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                          20,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    193,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               436,217
<PP&E>                                         519,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                 155,292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 992,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,293
<BONDS>                                        689,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   992,742
<SALES>                                        452,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               452,144
<CGS>                                          404,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  404,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (774)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (689)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
October 2, 2015

Mr. Steve Roberts

Syracuse Business Services dba Zoey Advertising

936 North Clinton Street

Syracuse, NY 13204

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and 

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 2, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Syracuse Business Services 

dba Zoey Advertising filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2853, but we are unable to process 

your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Jefferson BYRD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-31244

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 26, 2017

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Gary Jefferson Byrd, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 1992 Gary Jefferson Byrd, federal prisoner # 07983-035, was convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison. The district court concluded that the most recent action he filed to challenge this conviction was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it on this basis. Byrd now moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA), arguing that this action is a writ of coram nobis and that he is entitled to relief on his claims concerning his innocence.

Because Byrd is no longer in custody for the 1992 conviction, he cannot challenge it via a § 2255 motion. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 454 n.5 (5th Cir. 2000). He can, however, bring a writ of coram nobis to challenge this conviction. *See United States v. Dyer,*136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). Because this action is best classed as sounding in coram nobis, not § 2255, Byrd’s COA motion is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.

The writ of coram nobis may be used to correct only fundamental errors that result in a complete miscarriage of justice. *Dyer,*136 F.3d at 430. Because Byrd’s claims could have been presented sooner, he has not met this standard. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Umami-EX 10.36 Sale Purchasing Agreement Amendment






AGREEMENT TO AMEND THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") which is held by one hand BAJA AQUA-FARMS, SA DE CV (Hereinafter "BAF"), represented herein by Mr. Jaime Cuadra Joseph Velez and the other party MARPESCA, SA DE CV (Hereinafter "Fisheries"), represented herein by Mr. Victor Manuel Guadardo France, Contract they celebrate in accordance with the following:




DECLARATIONS




		
	I.
	- declare both parties through their legal representatives:




		
	(a)
	recognize each other's personality that appear to execute this amended agreement.




		
	(b)
	That on January 2, 2008 celebrated a purchase agreement, (hereinafter the "original contract").




		
	(c)
	In accordance to clause fourth paragraph 4.2 of the original contract they foresaw the possibility to extend its validity:






CLAUSES


		
	1.
	By means of this Amendment, and in accordance with clause fourth, section 4.2, the parties agree to extend the term of the Original Agreement from January 1 of 2012 to December 31 of 2012.




		
	2.
	In view of the foregoing, it modify section 4.1 of the Original Agreement to read as established below:




"4.1.  This contract is for a fixed period of one year so began on January 1 of 2012 and finishing on December 31 of 2012"











		
	3.
	The parties agree to ratify the Original Agreement and the amendment set here.




		
	4.
	At the request of either party, this Amendment Agreement could be ratified before a notary and the expenses incurred will be for the applicant.






FOR EVIDENCE AND LEGAL EFFECT, and read that it was this Amendment, and the parties aware of their obligations in the same state that there is no error, fraud or injury that would invalidate it, and it is signed in two original in the City of Ensenada, Baja California, on January 2 of 2012, in the presence of two witnesses.




	
					
	BAJA AQUA FARMS, S.A. DE C.V.
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Signed by:
	/s/ Jaime Cuadra
	 
	 
	 

	Name:
	Jaime Joseph Cuadra Velez
	 
	 
	 

	Post:
	Legal Representative
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	MARPESCA, S.A. DE C.V.
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Signed by:
	/s/ Victor Guardado
	 
	 
	 

	Name:
	Victor Manual Guardado France
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Attorney
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	WITNESS
	 
	WITNESS

	By:
	/s/ Anabel Hernandez
	 
	By:
	/a/ Jennifer Sanchez

	Name:
	Anabel Hernandez Ramirez
	 
	Name:
	Jennifer Sanchez Gonzalez








2
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30612, 333-39068, and 333-103198)of Blockbuster Inc. of our report dated February 9, 2004, except as to the sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth paragraphs of Note 11 which are as of March 1, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears on this Annual Reporton Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

Dallas, Texas 

March 15, 2004
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00115

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF N.R., A C HILD §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 360th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 360

- 699434

- 21 )

September 16, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wo m a ck

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on app eal i n this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00436-CV

In the Matter of D. D. H.

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-JV-14-030074, HONORABLE RHONDA HURLEY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant D.D.H. has informed this Court that he no longer wishes to pursue

this appeal and has filed a motion to dismissit. Appellant’s counsel states that he has conferred with

counsel for appellee The State of Texas, and it does not oppose this motion. We grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: August 27, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          90,382                      71
<SECURITIES>                                     4,230                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,055                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,627                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,279                      71
<PP&E>                                           8,531                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,226                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,563                      71
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,457                      70
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            70                      10
<OTHER-SE>                                     195,403                   (105)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,563                      71
<SALES>                                         62,580                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,580                       0
<CGS>                                           21,022                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,022                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,923                       3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (93,007)                     (3)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (93,007)                     (3)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (93,007)                     (3)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.32)                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.32)                       0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      23**








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (No. 333-87329) and Form S-8 (No. 333-82085, 333-82083, 333-87313,
      333-61634, 333-61636, 333-122490 and 333-128382) of Pennsylvania Commerce
      Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 2007, relating to the consolidated
      financial statements, and the effectiveness of Pennsylvania Commerce Bancorp,
      Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in the Annual
      Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
      on Form 10-K.





/s/
      Beard
      Miller Company LLP




Harrisburg,
      Pennsylvania


March
      14,
      2007
519	E	Oak	Hill	Drive,	Spring ,	Texas	77 386

- 1282

Phone : 888

- 396

- 5924	•	Email :		paul.ramirez @globaluai.com

1 | Page July 2 2 ,	2015

To : US Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20590 From : Paul	Ramirez,	President	&	COO

Unmanned	Ad

- Hoc	Industries,	Inc.

519	E	Oak	Hill	Drive

Spring,	TX	77386

- 1282

Re : Amendment	to	Exemption	Application	No. FAA

- 2015

- 1059

- 0001 filed	pursuant	to	Section	333	of

the	FAA	Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the	Federal	Aviation	Regulations	in	Regulatory	Docket	No.

FAA

- 2015

- 1059

.

Summary	of Exemption	R equest

Unmanned	Ad

- Hoc	Industries,	Inc.	(UAI)	has	filed	an	application	for	Exemption	numbered	FAA

2015

- 1059

- 0001	(hereinafter	the	Exemptio n)	for	multiple	purposes	including:

Agriculture,	Oil,	Gas,	and	Mineral	Survey/Scan

3

- Dimensional	Terrain	and	Structural	Modeling

Disaster	Response,	including	Emergency	Search	&	Rescue

Critical	Infrastructure	Monitoring,	including	Spectral	&	Thermal	Analys is

Security	Awareness

Unmanned	Ad

- Hoc	Industries,	Inc.	hereby	requests	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption	to	allow	two

additional	models	of	unmanned	aircraft	systems	(UAS)	that	fully	comply	with	the	conditions	of th e Exemption.	The	addition	of	two	new	UAS	plat forms will	benefit	the	public	by	providing	a	safer,	more

efficient	and	cost	effective	alternative	to	traditional	methods	of	inspection,	survey,	engineering	analysis

and monitoring

. The	commercially	available DJI	Inspire	1 UAS	and DJI	S1000 UAS	(with	A2	flight

controller)	have	been	successfully	granted	exemption	from	r egulation	by	t he	FAA;	see	reference

Exemption	No.	12075

, 12080 ,	and	12088	among	others. Appropriate	manufacturer	documentation	has

been	submitted	as	supplemental	information	wi th	this	amendment	request ,	showing	the	likeness

platform

- wise	between	UAI’s previously	petitioned	exemption	request UAS	(the	High	Endurance Folding

Frame ,	HEFF )	and	the	requested DJI	UAS ’

.

Please do	not	hesitate	to contact	the	undersigned	shoul d	there	be any	questions	on the	matter.

Respectfully,

Paul	Ramirez

President	&	COO

UAI,	Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel LIMON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50232 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gabriel Limón, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gabriel Limón 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). Limón 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 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6894

WILLIAM R. SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,

Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-00-1329-3-18BC)

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William R. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 2000). Smith’s case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to

file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Smith failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02

        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Homestore, Inc.:


Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated March 25, 2003, appearing in the 2002 Annual Report to Stockholders of
Homestore, Inc. (which report and consolidated financial statements are included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K) also included an audit of the financial
statement schedule listed in Item 14(a)(2) of this Form 10-K. In our opinion,
this financial statement schedule presents fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related
consolidated financial statements.

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Century City, California

March 25, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 on Form 10-K of Art Technology Group,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Robert D. Burke, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, to his best knowledge and belief, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                                 /s/ ROBERT D. BURKE
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                      Robert D. Burke
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                              (principal executive officer)

Date: March 13, 2006