alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lynn HENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Individual capacity; Lorie Davis, Professional capacity; Herman Weston, Jr.; Richard D. Walton; Unknown Marshall; Captain Carl N. Burson, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-41185 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 3, 2017

Lynn Henton, Pro Se

Dan Dilizia, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and - ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lynn Henton, Texas prisoner #. 694606, has filed this interlocutory appeal in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Henton argues that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction as to each of the following claims: (1) the “no-talking” policy; (2) the grooming policy; (3) the conditions of confinement; (4) the ae-*378cess to legal materials and the courts; (5) the indigent mail policy; (6) prisoner “compensation” for work performed; and (7) the physical condition of the correctional officers.

We review a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. *PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & Western R.R. Co.,*418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005). A movant is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction only if he establishes (1) a “substantial likelihood” that he will succeed on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that he will be irreparably injured if the injunction does not issue, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm resulting from the grant of the injunction, and (4) that the injunction “will not disserve the public interest.” *Byrum v. Landreth,*566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The movant carries “‘a heavy burden of persuading the district court that all four elements are satisfied,’ ” and failure to carry the burden on any one of the elements will result in a denial of injunctive relief. *Enterprise Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana,*762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Hen-ton has not made the showing required for injunctive relief with respect to any of his claims.

In addition, Henton appeals the district court denial of his motion for class certification. We decline to exercise our discretion to permit the appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U S DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                        88
<INVENTORY>                                     12,687
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,837
<PP&E>                                          25,267
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,739
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,287
<SALES>                                          4,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,716
<CGS>                                            3,337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    70
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (260)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 70

To permit exports of certain domestically produced crude oil, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DOLE (for Mr. MURKOWSKI) (for himself, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. STEVENS,

and Mr. HEFLIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To permit exports of certain domestically produced crude

oil, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE OIL.

4 Section 28 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to promote

5 the mining of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, gas, and so6 dium on the public domain’’, approved February 25, 1920

7 (commonly known as the ‘‘Mineral Leasing Act’’) (30

8 U.S.C. 185), is amended—

9 (1) by striking subsection (s) and inserting the

10 following:
2

•S 70 IS

1 ‘‘EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE OIL

2 ‘‘(s)(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), notwith3 standing any other provision of law (including any regula4 tion), any oil transported by pipeline over a right-of-way

5 granted pursuant to section 203 of the Trans-Alaska Pipe6 line Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1652) may be exported.

7 ‘‘(2) Except in the case of oil exported to a country

8 pursuant to a bilateral international oil supply agreement

9 entered into by the United States with the country before

10 June 25, 1979, or to a country pursuant to the Inter11 national Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of the International

12 Energy Agency, the oil shall be transported by a vessel

13 documented under the laws of the United States and

14 owned by a citizen of the United States (as determined

15 in accordance with section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916

16 (46 U.S.C. App. 802)).

17 ‘‘(3) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the au18 thority of the President under the Constitution, the Inter19 national Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.

20 1701 et seq.), or the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.

21 1601 et seq.) to prohibit exportation of the oil.’’; and

22 (2) by striking subsection (u).
3

•S 70 IS

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 This Act and the amendments made by it shall take

3 effect on the date of enactment.

Æ
EXHIBIT 12.1

SARBANES-OXLEY CEO CERTIFICATION
I, Maurice Tagami, certify that: 
1.     I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Keegan Resources Inc.; 
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4.     The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: 
(a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
(b)     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 
(c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d)     Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and 
5.     The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
(a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
Date: 
April 20, 2011
**/s/ Maurice Tagami**
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 660 

To amend section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, to allow the President 

not to make an annual budget resolution until all appropriations for 

the preceding fiscal year are enacted. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. PERLMUTTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, 

to allow the President not to make an annual budget 

resolution until all appropriations for the preceding fiscal 

year are enacted. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRESIDENT’S BUDGET SUBMISSION. 

4 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting after the first sentence the following 

6 new sentence: ‘‘If, on the later date specified in this sec7 tion, there is in effect an Act making or continuing appro8 priations for part of the current fiscal year for any of the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 660 IH

1 annual regular appropriations bills, then the President 

2 may delay the submission of the budget for the following 

3 fiscal year until full-year appropriations for the current 

4 fiscal year are enacted for such bill.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Eric FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. R. MOORE, Senior Warden; M. Roesler, Senior Warden; J. Peralta, Senior Warden, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-20103

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 6, 2017

Eric Flores, Pro Se

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, filed a motion for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Flores has raised only fanciful allegations, including claims that he has already been executed and that the defendants have utilized deadly technology to torture him and his mother, so he has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. *See Banos v. O’Guin,*144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied.

The facts surrounding Flores’s IFP request are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 *&*n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. We have previously warned Flores that he would face sanctions, including monetary ones, if he continued to file frivolous or repetitive pleadings. We have also directed him to review all pending matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive. *See Flores v. Director, TDCJ,*690 Fed.Appx. 157 (5th Cir. 2017); *Flores v. TDCJ,*690 Fed.Appx. 157 (5th Cir. 2017); *Flores v. Moore,*690 Fed.Appx. 153 (5th Cir. 2017); *Flores v. Moore,*691 Fed.Appx. 217 (5th Cir. 2017). Because Flores has ignored our warnings, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a SANCTION IS IMPOSED. Flores is ORDERED to remit a monetary sanction in the amount of $100, payable to the clerk of this court. Flores is also BARRED from filing any pleading in this court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until that sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file such pleading. Flores is further CAUTIONED that any future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions. He is again DIRECTED to review all pending matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 830 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 830

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
    Assistance Act to reauthorize the predisaster hazard mitigation 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2015

Mr. Carson of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
    Assistance Act to reauthorize the predisaster hazard mitigation 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM.

    Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(m)) is amended to read as 
follows:
    ``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2016 through 2020.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert Lane COUCH, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3791

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 6, 2017

Filed: November 9, 2017

Robert Lane Couch, Jr., Pro Se

Jerry Lee Short, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, Julia Catherine Walker, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VII, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lane Couch, Jr. appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security insurance benefits. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Based on de novo review of the record as a whole, this court agrees that substantial evidence supports the denial of benefits. *See Igo v. Colvin,*839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016). The ALJ was not required to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians insofar as those opinions were inconsistent with their findings or with the medical record, or where other medical opinions were supported by better or more thorough medical evidence. *See Grable v. Colvin,*770 F.3d 1196, 1201 (8th Cir. 2014); *Perkins v. Astrue,*648 F.3d 892, 897-99 (8th Cir. 2011); *Davidson v. Astrue,*578 F.3d 838, 843 (8th Cir. 2009). To the extent Couch’s pro se brief challenges the ALJ’s credibility determination, that determination is entitled to deference because it was supported by good reasons and substantial evidence. *See Julin v. Colvin,*826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2016).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri,
#### TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Appellant v. OPTICAL DEVICES, LLC, Appellee

2016-2012, 2016-2013, 2016-2014

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 15, 2017

Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, DLA Piper US LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Mark D. Fowler, Alan Limbach, Carrie Lynne Williamson, Brent Yamashita, East Palo Alto, CA.

Stephen Jon Tytran, Scenera Research LLC, Ports-mouth, NH, argued for appel-lee. Also represented by Theodosios Thomas.

(Newman, Schall, and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13935-13936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05177]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9960]
RIN 1545-BP79


Guidance Under Section 958 on Determining Stock Ownership; 
Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to a correction of a Treasury Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects a correction to a final regulations 
(Treasury Decision 9960) published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
February 22, 2022. The final regulations concern the treatment of 
domestic partnerships for purposes of determining amounts included in 
the gross income of their partners with respect to foreign 
corporations.

DATES: These corrections are effective on March 11, 2022, and 
applicable on or after February 22, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Tracy at (202) 317-6934 (not 
a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations (TD 9960) subject to this correction are 
issued under section 958 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published on February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9445), the final 
regulations (TD 9960) contain errors that need to be corrected.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the correction to a final 
regulation (TD 9960), which was the subject of FR Doc. 2022-03611, 
published on February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9445), is corrected to read as 
follows:
    1. On page 9445, first column, under the caption RIN, the language 
``1545-BO59'' is corrected to read ``1545-BP79''.
    2. On page 9445, first column, the subject heading, the language

[[Page 13936]]

``Guidance on Passive Foreign Investment Companies'' is corrected to 
read ``Guidance Under Section 958 on Determining Stock Ownership''.

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,
Chief, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure 
and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2022-05177 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00507-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

JOSE RUIZ

On Appeal from the

25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 34-13-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 11, 2021
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

t0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148415

JUANITA LEE,

Petitioner

- Appellant

,

v SC: 148415

COA: 318489

Wayne CC: 11

- 009325

- AA

STATE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 26, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.