alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RENASANT BANK INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EARTHRESOURCES OF FRANKLIN COUNTY LLC, John F. Smithgall, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-11419 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 6, 2017)

' Francis Edwin Hallman, Jr., Richard Anthony Wingate, Hallman & Wingate, LLC, Marietta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John A. Christy, Andrew John Lavoie, Sehreeder Wheeler & Flint, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

*640PER CURIAM:

Renasant Bank sued EarthResources of Franklin County and John F. Smithgall to enforce a promissory note and personal guaranty. The district court entered judgment against EarthResources and Smithgall in 2018, and our court affirmed. *Renasant Bank, Inc. v. Earth Res. of Franklin Cty., LLC,*537 Fed.Appx. 889 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). In 2017, EarthResources and Smithgall, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed with the district court a motion for relief from final judgment and a motion to reopen discovery. The district court denied the motions.

EarthResources and Smithgall now appeal, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motions. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, however, we find no reversible error. EarthResources and Smithgall have not “demonstrate^] a justification so compelling that the district court was required to vacate its” judgment. *See Cano v. Baker,*435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing the “heavy” burden a party has on appeal when it is challenging a district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief).

AFFIRMED.1

1

. Renasant’s motion for damages and costs for frivolous appeal is DENIED.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30200

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT CRAIG; CLARENCE E. SCOTTSVILLE;

BOBBIE J. MCFARLAND,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

GRANT PARISH POLICE JURY; W. C. HOLLOWAY,

Individually and as a Member of the Grant Parish Police

Jury; JULIUS FRED SCOTT, Individually and as a Member

of the Grant Parish Police Jury; MICHAEL L. BROWN, 

Individually and as a Member of the Grant Parish Police 

Jury; DONNIE BROWN, Individually and as a Member

of the Grant Parish Police Jury; MARVIN DELONG,

Individually and as a Member of the Grant Parish Police 

Jury; BOBBY JOE CHELETTE, Individually and as a 

Member of the Grant Parish Police Jury; MELVIN E. GENE

ALLEN, Individually and as a Member of the Grant Parish

Police Jury,

Defendants-Appellants.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. 03-CV-147)

_______________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
*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.

2

PER CURIAM:*

The members of the Grant Parish Police Jury appeal the denial of their

12(b)(6) motion, urging their immunity. We affirm for these reasons:

1. The pleading does not allege action necessarily legislative in nature, as

the district judge explained.

2. The pleading alleges an uncompensated taking without notice to benefit

someone other than for a public purpose.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**Certification
      of**


**Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer**


**of
      Buckeye Ventures, Inc. Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




This
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the  report on Form
      10-QSB (the “Form 10-QSB”) for the six months ended June 30, 2007, of Buckeye
      Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Henry S. Leonard, Vice President
      Finance and Chief Accounting Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer, of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
                or
                section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




(2)
            The
                information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
                material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB
      pursuant to Item 601(6)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
      63
      of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part
      of
      the Form 10-KSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
      registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
      general incorporation language in such filing.




Date:
                August 20, 2007
            
            By:
            /s/
                Henry S. LeonardHenry
                S. LeonardChief
                Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)
# EUR-Lex - 32000Y1212(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000Y1212(01)

**Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between the Shetland mainland (Tingwall/Sumburgh) and the islands of Foula, Fair Isle, Out Skerries and Papa Stour (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 356 , 12/12/2000 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between the Shetland mainland (Tingwall/Sumburgh) and the islands of Foula, Fair Isle, Out Skerries and Papa Stour

(2000/C 356/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The United Kingdom has decided to modify the public service obligations in respect of the scheduled air services between the Shetland mainland (Tingwall/Sumburgh) and the islands of Foula, Fair Isle, Out Skerries and Papa Stour as set out in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 394 of 30 December 1997 pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. The modified public service obligations are as follows:

- Minimum frequencies:

- to Foula from Tingwall - two return trips on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and one return trip on Tuesday (summer service). Two return trips on Friday and one return trip on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday (winter service),

- to Fair Isle - Two return trips from Tingwall on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; and two return trips from Sumburgh on Saturday (summer service). Two return trips from Tingwall on Monday, Wednesday and Friday (winter service),

- to Out Skerries from Tingwall - Two return trips on Thursday and one return trip on Monday, Wednesday and Friday,

- to Papa Stour from Tingwall - Two return trips on Tuesday.

- Capacity:

- the capacity of the aircraft used should be not less than eight seats on each route although, depending on weight, numbers may be restricted on the Out Skerries route.

- Fares:

The price of a single adult ticket must not exceed GBP 21,30 (Foula), GBP 37,20 (Fair Isle), GBP 18,00 (Out Skerries) and GBP 16,00 (Papa Stour).

The maximum fare on each route may be increased once every year with the prior written consent of Shetland Islands Council in line with the United Kingdom's retail price index (all items) or any successor index to this.

No other changes may be made to the fare levels without the prior written consent of Shetland Islands Council.

The new maximum fare on each route must be notified to the Civil Aviation Authority and will enter into force after its publication by the European Commission in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,139
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    159,209
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        159,497
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 346,537
<DEPOSITS>                                     219,037
<SHORT-TERM>                                    45,330
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,038
<LONG-TERM>                                     20,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 346,537
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,006
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,717
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    52
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,775
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,084
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,935
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,840
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       50
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (93)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,396
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,396
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,102
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.85
<LOANS-NON>                                        539
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    214
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,093
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       11
<RECOVERIES>                                         8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,140
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,813
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            327


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco GUTIERREZ-LOPEZ, also known as Jesus Aguilar, also known as Jorge Alberto Gutierrez-Rodriguez, also known as Jesus Fuentes, also known as Jorge Lopez-Perez, also known as Juan Jose Espinoza, also known as Noel Torres, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11469 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 10, 2017

*966James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Juan Gabriel Rodriguez, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Francisco Gutierrez-Lopez challenges the 35-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The Government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellate brief. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no. substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Gutierrez first raises an argument that is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 228, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a. sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). In *Gonzalez-Longoria,*we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2014), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). *Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d at 672.

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. *Groendyke Transport, Inc.,*406 F,2d at 1162. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cíe. 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.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02033

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02033\02033_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02033\02033_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02033\02033_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02033\02033_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02033\02033_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02033\02033_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02033\02033_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02033\02033_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02033\02033_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02033\02033_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02033\02033_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

02033\Certification Statement Plant ID 02033.pdf Plant certification statement

02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_PART A MAP-1 Danskammer Survey.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part A MARKED UP AERIAL PHOTO.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part A MARKED UP AERIAL PHOTO.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part A Water Balance Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part D SEC 3.1 WWT-1 BLOCK DIAGRAM.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part F Section 5 Ground Water Well Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part G AERIAL PHOTO.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part G AERIAL PHOTO.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02033\Supplemental Documents\02033_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

                      Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from June 30, 1999 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                        24,179
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 206,752
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   10,796,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        49,937
<DEPRECIATION>                (116,002)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                9,713,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0
<BONDS>                       16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   1,212
<COMMON>                      48,013
<OTHER-SE>                    9,478,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  9,713,006
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 53,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (140,684)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (140,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (140,684)
<EPS-BASIC>                 .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .000


</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3021

___________

Mamie C. Wray, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of *

the Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 21, 2003

 Filed: March 27, 2003

___________

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, MELLOY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mamie C. Wray appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Western District of Arkansas, affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny

her application for disability insurance benefits. For reversal, Wray argues that the

administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in discrediting her subjective complaints of

disabling pain and in finding that she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)
-2-

to perform her past relevant work. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

We find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit Wray’s

subjective complaints. See Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000)

(standard of review). The ALJ considered the relevant factors in evaluating Wray’s

credibility, found her reported daily-living activities were inconsistent with the lack

of limitations placed on her by physicians, and noted that she had not been found

incapable of performing her past work because of any impairment. See Dunahoo v.

Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1038-39 (8th Cir. 2001) (ALJ’s credibility determination

supported by substantial evidence where he recited appropriate factors and noted

inconsistencies in record such as lack of physician-ordered functional restrictions).

We also find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Wray

retained the RFC to perform her past relevant work of secretary. Wray testified she

could stand for 5-10 minutes, sit for 20 minutes, and walk 50 feet; no treating

physician limited any of her physical activities; and a consulting physician found that

Wray had normal range of motion in her spine and all extremities and could lift 10

pounds. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (2002) (sedentary work requires occasional

walking and standing, and lifting no more than 10 pounds); U.S. Dep’t of Labor,

Dictionary of Occupational Titles, § 201.362-030 (4th ed. 1991) (classifying

secretarial work as sedentary). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
March 4, 2015 Mr. A.J. Muldoon Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation West Building, 1200 NewJersey Ave. SE Washington D.C. 20590 Reference DOT-OST-2000-8322 Dear Mr. Muldoon, NEBRASKA

The City ofAlliance, Nebraska along withThe City of Chadron, Nebraska herein submits its community comments regarding Essential Air Service and the four carrier proposals that have been submitted to the Department. We are extremely grateful to all four airlines, Boutique Air, Gem Air, Great Lakes and Via Air, fortheirair service proposals and all four carriers didvisit each our cities and interviewwith us. All four carriers proposed 12 round trip per week service to Denver; Boutique with a PC12, Gem Air and Via Airwith Navajo equipment and Great Lakes with a nine seat Beech 1900D. The Great Lakes proposal paired Alliance with Chadron, the otherthree airlines proposed Alliance and Chadron service by a dedicated aircraft nonstop back and forth from each city. The City ofAlliance and The City ofChadron, after careful consideration, endorses the proposal of Boutique Air to provide Essential Air Service atAlliance and Chadron. We wentthrough an exhaustive review ofeach carrier's proposals and listened carefullyto each carrier during their presentations and question 

### & answer sessions duringtheirvisits to Alliance and Chadron. We would have been happy with any ofthe three carriers, Boutique, Gem Air orVia Air. Boutique's proposals win ourendorsement by a narrow margin over Gem Air and Via Air. Our only caveat on our endorsement is that we require TSA sterile operation into Denver International and have advised Boutique thatthey must gain TSA certification for such an operation and gain access to the main terminal at Denver. We request thatthe Department award the new EAS contract to Boutique Air. Should there be an issue with the TSA certification or Denver main terminal access priorto carrier service startup we will contact the Department immediately in orderto put a hold on the Department's contract with Boutique pending satisfaction ofthe TSA certification and main terminal access requirements. We want to thank the Departmentfor supporting us in our participation in the EAS program. We also again thank all four carriers fortheir interest in providing our EAS airservice. I have attached each resolution from each City Council for your reference. Best regards

# \~n

# n**\\~** 

# .**~llt&L Lyn(~.**  Placek; Airport Manager 

# 111r The City 

## of**Alliance~** 

## P.O. Box D**~Alliance,** 

## NE 69301**~** 

## 308-762-5400