alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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 Fifth Circuit

Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 05-20824

____________

IN RE: TRI-UNION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Debtor.

ARCH W. HELTON; HELTON PROPERTIES, INC.

Appellants,

versus

TRI-UNION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:04-CV-2013

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
-2-

After reviewing the record in this case and considering the briefs of the parties and arguments

of counsel, we affirm the District Court's Judgment essentially for the reasons stated in its Order

dated July 29, 2005. The Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded, and the District Court correctly

affirmed, that summary judgment should be granted to Tri-Union Development Corp. on the

Appellants’ claims of drainage on the 7900' sand, underpayment of royalties or working interest

payments on the 8100'sand, and underpayment ofroyalties or working interest payments on the 8550'

sand. As a result, the Appellants are not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 679 

To amend the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 

of 1998 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the matching 

funds requirement under the specialty crop research initiative, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2023 

Ms. SCHRIER (for herself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mrs. 

RODGERS of Washington, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. PEREZ, Ms. 

BONAMICI, Ms. DELBENE, Ms. SLOTKIN, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. HARDER of 

California, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. RYAN, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. 

HUIZENGA, Mr. KILMER, Mr. COSTA, and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 to authorize the Secretary 

of Agriculture to waive the matching funds requirement 

under the specialty crop research initiative, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 679 IH

1 SECTION 1. MATCHING FUNDS WAIVER UNDER SPECIALTY 

2 CROP RESEARCH INITIATIVE. 

3 Section 412(g)(3) of the Agricultural Research, Ex4 tension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 

5 7632(g)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(C) WAIVER.—With respect to a grant 

8 awarded under this section on or after the date 

9 of enactment of this subparagraph, the Sec10 retary may waive the matching funds require11 ment under subparagraph (A).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Index of CBI Pre

‐ Rule Communication with Companies

1.) CBI Placeholder: Oct. 6, 2010 – Corresponde nce from Don Magid, Solvay Fluorides, LLC, to Drusilla Hufford, EPA 2.) CBI Placeholder: Dec. 15, 2010 – Correspondenc e from William J. Hamel, Arkema Inc., to Drusilla Hufford, EPA 3.) CBI Placeholder: April 15, 2011 – Correspondenc e from William J. Hamel, Arkema Inc., to Drusilla Hufford, EPA
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report of Pipeline Data Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSBA for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), MacAllister Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and , Donald Grunesien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

|         |                                  |   |         |                                                                |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:     | /s/ MacAllister Smith                 |   | By:     | /s/ Donald Gruneisen                                                |
| Name:   | MacAllister Smith                     |   | Name:   | Donald Gruneisen                                                    |
| Title:  | Chief Executive Officer and President |   | Title:  | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

Date: November 28, 2007

 [A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pipeline Data Inc. and will be retained by Pipeline Data Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Exhibit 99.3 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Peter Breese, Chief Executive Officer of Asanko Gold Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (i) the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Annual Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 16, 2015/s/ Peter BreesePeter BreeseChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
#### Kathryne Shannon, Appellant, *v.*Margaret V. Bergener, Respondent.

Submitted May 24, 1943;

decided June 10, 1943.

*873
      *John A. Wallace*for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person.

*Arthur H. Ellis*for motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Motion to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leodegario AMBRIZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17339 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 3, 2017)

Wylly Thomas Jordan, III, John Andrew Horn, Alison B. Prout, Lawrence R. Som-*637merfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicole Kaplan, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Leodegario Ambriz-Guzman appeals his sentence of 37 months of imprisonment for reentering the United States illegally a second time after being deported for an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. §'1326(a), (b)(2). Ambriz challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.

In 1998, Ambriz, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without permission and, in 2004, he was .convicted of trafficking more than 400 grams of cocaine. After Ambriz served four years of his twelve-year sentence, officials deported him to Mexico. Three months later, Am-briz attempted to reenter the United States, but officials apprehended him at the border and he was convicted of reentering the country illegally. After he served 33 months in prison, Ambriz was deported again to his homeland. Undeterred, Ambriz reentered the United States illegally a second time, and when confronted by Georgia officers, he lied about his identity and possessed false identification documents.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court reasonably determined that a sentence at the low end of Ambriz’s advisory guideline range of 37 to 46 months of imprisonment was required to account for his criminal history, to reflect the seriousness of and to punish him for entering the United States illegally a third time, to deter him and other aliens from committing future similar offenses, and to promote respect for the law, which' he had flouted by possessing false identification documents. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553. Ambriz requested a downward variance to 24 months of imprisonment on the ground that he reentered the country to escape the cartel in his hometown of Morelia, but the district court was entitled to discredit Ambriz’s argument because he acknowledged he could relocate to Mexico City. Ambriz’s sentence, which is well below his maximum statutory sentence of 20 years of imprisonment, is reasonable. *See United States v. Gonzalez,*550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).

We AFFIRM Ambriz’s sentence.
Order entered May 20, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 01670 - CV D&J REAL ESTATE SERV ICES, INC. D/B/A RE/MAX PREMIER GROUP , ET AL. , Appellant s V. GREG L. PERKINS , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 429th J udicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429 - 00559 - 2011 

### O RDER We DENY appellees/cross

- appellants’ May 9, 2014 motion for reconsideration of their agreed first motion for an extension of time to file a cross

- appellant’s brief. Ap pellants filed their brief on May 16, 2014. Accordingly, appellees’ combined appellees’ and cross

- appellants’ brief is due on Monday June 16, 2014
. See 5th Tex. App. (Dallas) Loc. R. 10(3)(b).
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### Frank J. MOORE, Appellant, v. William Charles SWENFURTH.

No. 15963.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 20, 1966.

Decided Oct. 31, 1966.

David Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa. (Andrew F. Napoli, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Michael Shekmar, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this action seeking damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $10,000.00 on which judgment was entered in his favor. Asserting that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and inadequate the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the question of damages alone. The district court denied the motion and the plaintiff appealed.

 We have examined the record in the light of the plaintiff’s contentions. The trial errors which the plaintiff alleges are so lacking in merit as to border on the frivolous. So far as concerns the plaintiff’s contention that the amount of the verdict is inadequate and against the weight of the evidence it is sufficient to say that the district court in the exercise of the discretion which the law commits to it in this regard overruled this contention and was certainly not guilty of an abuse of discretion in doing so. Beyond determining this question our reviewing authority does not extend. Lebeck v. William A. Jarvis, Inc., 3 Cir. 1957, 250 F.2d 285, 288.

The judgment and order of the district court will be affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Celeste Monette BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10148 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 17, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Celeste Monette Blair, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Celeste Monette Blair 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). Blair 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 Cíe. 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.
#### COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENTS, LLC, DBA Oui Agree, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee Citrix Systems, Inc., TiVo, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC, Time Warner Cable Information Systems (Texas) LLC, Time Warner Cable Information Services (Texas) LLC, Defendants

2016-2560

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 25, 2017

Christian John Hurt, Nix Patterson <& Roach LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Derek Tod Gilliland, Daingerfíeld, TX.

Craig E. Countryman, Pish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Jason W. Wolff; Frank Scherkenbach, Boston, MA; Leah A. Edelman, Washington, DC; Neil Warren, Redwood City, CA.

(O Malley, Reyna, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Cheri LANGEHENNIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff, Loudoun County Sheriff's Office, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2032

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Harvey Joseph Volzer, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Alexander Francuzen-ko, COOK CRAIG & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cheri Langehennig appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination action as untimely. We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and the record submitted on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Langehennig v. Chapman,*No. 1:16-cv-00466-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma*763terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 606 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2015 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

certain compensation received by public safety officers 

and their dependents from gross income. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 606 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Don’t Tax Our Fallen 

3 Public Safety Heroes Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATION RE5 CEIVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS AND 

6 THEIR DEPENDENTS. 

7 Subsection (a) of section 104 of the Internal Revenue 

8 Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end 

9 of paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end of para10 graph (5) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by inserting after 

11 paragraph (5) the following new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(6) amounts received pursuant to— 

13 ‘‘(A) section 1201 of the Omnibus Crime 

14 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

15 U.S.C. 3796); or 

16 ‘‘(B) a program established under the laws 

17 of any State which provides monetary com18 pensation for surviving dependents of a public 

19 safety officer who has died as the direct and 

20 proximate result of a personal injury sustained 

21 in the line of duty, 

22 except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any 

23 amounts that would have been payable if death of 

24 the public safety officer had occurred other than as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

HR 606 RDS

1 the direct and proximate result of a personal injury 

2 sustained in the line of duty.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00402-CR

Harold Newton King, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-07-200435, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Harold Newton King seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for assaultwith family

violence. Sentence was imposed on June 6, 2007. There was no motion for new trial. The deadline

for perfecting appeal was therefore July 6, 2007. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). King’s pro se notice

of appeal was filed on June 4, 2008. Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of

the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton

v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If King is entitled to an out-of-time appeal, he must seek it by means of a

post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07

(West Supp. 2007). King’s motion for extension of time to file brief is dismissed.
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 23, 2008

Do Not Publish
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hollie REMILLARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16881 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 8, 2017)

Peter J. Sholl, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, David Lazarus, Yolande G. Viacava, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Myers, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Martin DerOvanesian, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Myers, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Hollie Remillard in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Remil-lard’s revocation and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### Michael Contrez JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7189

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 24, 2017

Michael Contrez Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Contrez Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certifícate of appealability and his motion for appointment of counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JAN-2-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-4-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     OCT-3-1998
<CASH>                                                6,340
<SECURITIES>                                          5,732
<RECEIVABLES>                                         4,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                           5,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     21,666
<PP&E>                                                3,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       27,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 5,152
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 23
<OTHER-SE>                                           22,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         27,618
<SALES>                                              17,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     17,265
<CGS>                                                 9,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         9,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     13,693
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1,921)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1,921)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1,921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        ($0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        ($0.22)
 
        

</TABLE>