alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LINKGINE, INC., Appellant v. VIGLINK, INC., Skimlinks, Inc., Skimbit, Ltd., Appellees

2016-2087, 2016-2088

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 11, 2017

Kimberly L. Boldt, Boldt Law Firm, PA, Boca Raton, FL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Jeffrey David Mueller, Mario R. Giommoni; William C. Hear-on, William C. Hearon, PA, Miami, FL.

Richard Martinelli, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellees. Also represented by Donald E. Daybell, Irvine, CA. Appellees Skim-links, Inc., Skimbit, Ltd. also represented by Catrina Wanning Wang, New York, NY.

Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Scott Weidenfeller, Benjamin T. Hickman, Ka-koli Caprihan.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            STERLING COMMERCE, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                 (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE INFORMATION)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS
                                                             ENDED
                                                          DECEMBER 31,
                                                             1996
                                                          ------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Primary:
Average shares outstanding.............................      75,000
Net effect of dilutive stock
options-based on the treasury stock
method using average market price.....................        1,855
                                                            -------
Total..................................................      76,855
                                                            =======

Net income.............................................      16,060
                                                            =======

Per share amount.......................................     $  0.21
                                                            =======
Fully diluted:
Average shares outstanding.............................      75,000
Net effect of dilutive stock options-
based on the treasury stock method
using the higher of average or
quarter-end market price..............................        2,941
                                                            -------
Total..................................................      77,941
                                                            =======

Net income.............................................      16,060
                                                            =======
Per share amount.......................................     $  0.21
                                                            =======

</TABLE>
NO. 07-12-0022-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 22, 2012

______________________________

GRADY R. MITCHELL,

Appellant

v.

POPAT PATEL, INDIVIDUALLY, A/K/A PAUL PATEL,

KAMU PATEL, INDIVIDUALLY, SUNIL PATEL,

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A SUPER 8 MOTEL AND ANAND, INC.,

Appellees

________________________________

FROM THE 237th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2009-547,914; HON. LESLIE HATCH, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Grady R. Mitchell appeals from the trial court’s judgment that appellant take 

nothing by his suit. The clerk’s record was filed with this Court on March 16, 2012. An 

affidavit of indigence was filed by appellant on February 6, 2012. Appellees have filed a 

response to the affidavit contesting Mitchell’s request to proceed without the payment of 

costs. 
2

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 237th District 

Court of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial 

court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a 

hearing to determine the following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

 2. whether appellant is indigent; and, if so,

3. whether the appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to his 

indigency. 

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) 

execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) 

cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter, 

and 3) cause to be developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and 

arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing, if any. Additionally, the district 

court shall then file the supplemental records and reporter’s records transcribing the 

hearing with the clerk of this court on or before April 23, 2012. Should further time be 

needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before 

April 23, 2012.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
#### Thaisheena M. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-4180

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 7, 2017

Filed: August 18, 2017

Thaisheena M. Nicholson, Jefferson City, MO, pro se.

Julia C. Walker, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Tammy Dickinson, U.S. *999Atty., Lisa A. Thomas, Acting Chief Counsel, Region VII, Soc. Sec. Admin., Kansas City, MO, of counsel, on the brief), for appellee

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Thaisheena M. Nicholson appeals the district court’s1 judgment upholding the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security to deny Nicholson’s application for supplemental security income. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The record supports the district court’s conclusion that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not grant Nicholson’s request to reopen and reconsider the merits of her prior applications for benefits, as the ALJ did in *Jelinek v. Heckler,*764 F.2d 507, 508 (8th Cir. 1985). Absent a de facto administrative reopening, this court has no jurisdiction to review the denial of a request to reopen without a hearing. *See Califano v. Sanders,*430 U.S. 99, 107-08, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). Upon de novo review, this court finds the benefits decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. *See Teague v. Astrue,*638 F.3d 611, 614 (8th Cir. 2011). The ALJ’s credibility findings are entitled to deference because those findings are supported by good reasons and substantial evidence. *See Mabry v. Colvin,*815 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir. 2016). The ALJ was not required to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians insofar as those opinions were con-clusory, based on subjective complaints, or outside the doctors’ area of expertise. *See Julin v. Colvin,*826 F.3d 1082, 1088-89 (8th Cir. 2016); *Wildman v. Astrue,*596 F.3d 959, 965-67 (8th Cir. 2010).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Sarah W. Hays, ' United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0615 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0615

**2002/615/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 2002 amending Decision 92/486/EEC establishing the form of cooperation between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 2735) **

*
Official Journal L 196 , 25/07/2002 P. 0060 - 0060 *

Commission Decision

of 22 July 2002

amending Decision 92/486/EEC establishing the form of cooperation between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States

(notified under document number C(2002) 2735)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/615/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning the veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2), and in particular Article 20(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Various Community studies and seminars indicate that the ANIMO network architecture should be reviewed with a view to establishing a veterinary system that includes all the different computerised applications used.

(2) Decision 92/486/EEC of 25 September 1992 establishing the form of cooperation between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/301/EC(4), should be amended accordingly so as to guarantee the continuity of the ANIMO network.

(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following paragraph 7 is added to Article 2a of Decision 92/486/EEC: "7. For the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, the coordination authorities provided for in Article 1 shall ensure that the contracts referred to in that Article are extended for one year."

The following charge shall apply in respect of this paragraph:

- EUR 386 per unit (central unit, local unit, frontier inspection post) for all the ANIMO units listed in Decision 2002/459/EC(5).

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 April 2002.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 291, 7.10.1992, p. 20.

(4) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001, p. 73.

(5) OJ L 159, 17.6.2002, p. 27.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

POLICY 

I ccr1i fy that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compli ed with the requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 for the attached dra!l final regulation. Carbon Pollution 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electri c Utility Generating Units. 

RIN 2060-/\R33. 

tu{~. Associate Administrator, Office of Policy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable · Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
<PAGE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                       EXHIBIT 11.1
                                            HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
                                            COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,           SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                     1998               1997               1998               1997
                                                --------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------
<S>                                             <C>                <C>               <C>                <C>

Net loss                                         $   (398,113)     $    (443,433)     $  (1,552,102)     $  (1,533,522)
                                                --------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------
                                                --------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------

Weighted average common shares outstanding           6,545,465          6,456,108          6,540,129          6,446,240
                                                --------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------
                                                --------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------

Net loss per common share                        $      (0.06)     $       (0.07)     $       (0.24)     $       (0.24)
                                                --------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------
                                                --------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------

</TABLE>





                                      12
#### Robert Steven MAWHINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55006

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*938Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 3, 2017

Robert Steven Mawhinney, Pro Se

John David Hayashi, Esquire, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Irvine, CA, Robert Jon Hendricks, Esquire, Attorney, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Steven Mawhinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his petition to vacate an arbitration award entered against him and granting American Airlines, Inc.’s petition to confirm the award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc.,*505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly denied' Ma-whinney’s petition to vacate the arbitration award because Mawhinney’s allegations of arbitrator misconduct, and his disagreements with the arbitration process and result, failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds for vacating the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10. *See Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc.,*341 F.3d 987, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this regard.”); *see also U.S. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat’l Ins. Co.,*591 F.3d 1167, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Arbitrators enjoy wide discretion to require the exchange of evidence, and to admit or exclude evidence, how and when they see fit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mawhinney’s motion to alter or amend the judgment because Ma-whinney failed to establish any basis for such relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

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).

Mawhinney’s requests to supplement the record, set forth in his reply brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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)

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



Date:  May 15, 2009



| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Allen E. Kahn                    
| |     | Allen E. Kahn
Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Patrick Bertram WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State of South Carolina, Respondent.

No. 17-6102

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 16, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Patrick Bertram Walker, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Bertram Walker appeals the district court’s text order denying his Motion to Correct the Record and Emergency Relief. We have reviewed the record and Walker’s claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s text order. *Walker v. Warden,*No. 1:09-cv-02672-HMH (D.S.C. Dec. 15, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### IN RE: E.W., Petitioner.

No. 17-1645

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Victor Stone, Russell P. Butler, MARYLAND CRIME VICTIMS’ RESOURCE CENTER, INC., Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stephen M. Schen-ning, Acting United States Attorney, Matthew P. Phelps, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.

*770Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted E.W.’s grandparents John and Joeann Wharton (defendants) of numerous offenses relating to their improper receipt of Social Security benefits. The district court sentenced each defendant to pay restitution to both the Social Security Administration (SSA) and to various family members, including E.W., on whose behalf the defendants misappropriated the benefits. In lieu of paying the Whartons the benefits they would otherwise receive, the SSA has recouped those benefits to correct for its previous overpayment to them. Because the WRartons receive no other income, E.W. has not received any restitution payments.

E.W. filed a motion to adjust the schedule of restitution payments, pursuant to the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). After receiving briefing from both E.W. and the Government, the district court issued a thorough written opinion denying the motion. *United States v. Wharton,*No. ELH-13-0043, 2017 WL 1862466 (D. Md. May 8, 2017). E.W. then filed this-petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

The' district court noted several bases on which to deny E.W.’s motion. It held, for example, that 42 U.S.C. § 404(a)(1), as well as regulations SSA has promulgated pursuant to that statute, “authorize SSA to withhold defendants’ social security benefits, ‘independent of this criminal action,’ to recover overpayments of benefits under the circumstances of this case.” *Wharton,*2017 WL 1862466, at * 8 (quoting *United States v. Shrine,*No. 1:10-CR-444-WSD, 2015 WL 3932422, at * 2 (N.D. Ga. June 25, 2015)). And, it continued, individuals may only challenge SSA recovery procedures through the mechanism described in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and not via the MVRA. *Wharton,*2017 WL 1862466, at *10. The court also noted that even though “SSA[‘s recoupment of the Whartons’ benefits] adversely affects defendants’ ability to pay restitution,” there was “no fatal conflict between the Social Security Act and its enabling regulations regarding recoupment, and criminal restitution statutes, such as the MVRA. This is because SSA recoups overpayments, not restitution.” *Id.*at *13.

We find that the district court correctly applied the law in denying E.W.’s motion. Accordingly, we deny E.W.’s petition for mandamus.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Maria D. Gonzalez DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-70627

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

Judith Seeds Miller, Attorney, Law Office of Judith Seeds Miller, Bakersfield, CA, Howard Robert Davis, Law Office of Howard R. Davis, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

*668Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria D. Gonzalez Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and ordering her removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress and claims of constitutional violations. *Martinez-Medina v. Holder,*673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Gonzalez Diaz’s motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, or in sustaining the removability charge, because *Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder*forecloses her contention that her statements to immigration officials at the border were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009). Gonzalez Diaz urges us to reconsider our holding in *Samayoa-Martinez,*but a three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening decision from a higher court or en banc decision of this court. *See Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011).

The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting the government’s evidence, where the documents submitted-were probative, their admission was fundamentally fair, and Gonzalez Diaz failed to establish that they were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. *See Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) ((“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it”) (internal citations omitted)); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Because the border officials did not violate 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) when they obtained information from Gonzalez Diaz before notifying her of her procedural rights under immigration law, we need not reach her contention that this lack of notice made her statements to the border patrol involuntary. *See Samayoa-Martinez*at 902.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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