alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-10191

__________________

KENNETH GRANVIEL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CV-111-E)

- - - - - - - - - -

February 27, 1996 Before GARWOOD, DUHÊ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth Granviel, a prisoner of the Texas

Department of Criminal Just ice, Institutional Division, who is

scheduled to die by lethal injection sometime after sundown this

date, has applied to us this morning for a Certificate of Probable

Cause (CPC) to appeal from orders of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Texas which denied Granviel’s

petition for writ of habeas cor pus and his motions for stay of

execution and issuance of CPC. Granviel also asks us to stay his

execution and allow him to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), so that

he can appeal the district court’s denial of habeas relief.

In denying Granviel the relief requested in the district2

cou rt, our learned and respected colleague, The Honorable Eldon

Mahon, a senior judge of that court whose experience with the

myriad trips of Granviel’s case up and down the judicial ladder

spans well more than a decade, rendered a clear, complete, and

eminently correct explication of his equally correct conclusions.

We could not improve on the work product of Judge Mahon and would

only waste judicial resources and a portion of the precious little

time that remains to petitioner if we were to attempt to do so. As

we are in full agreement with the procedural and subs tantive

reasoning and rulings of the district court, we incorporate by

reference Judge Mahon’s opinion, adopt it as our own, and for the

reasons therein expressed deny Granviel’s motion to this court for

CPC and stay of execution.
#### MOTOROLA, INC., FKA Motorola Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold PICK, DBA C. Donnelly Communications, DBA Radio Design, an individual, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-55312

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 13, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 22, 2017

Jeffrey M. Cohon, Cohon *&*Poliak, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Alan I. Nahmias, Esquire, Attorney, Jeffrey Eric Wulkan, Mirman, Bubman & Nahmias, LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kathryn Marie Davis, Attorney, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and PARKER,** Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr„ United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant Harold Pick (“Pick”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to *621vacate a renewal of judgment in favor of Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“MSI”). We affirm.

The district court correctly concluded MSI had standing to seek renewal of the judgment against Pick. It was not necessary for Motorola, Inc. to execute a separate assignment of its rights in the judgment to MSI because this automatically occurred as an operation of Delaware law. 8 Del Code § 259 (a) (“when any merger ,.. shall become effective under this chapter., all debts due to any of [the] constituent corporations .,. shall be vested in the corporation surviving or resulting from such merger”). To the extent Pick argued it was possible the judgment against him had already been transferred to another entity prior to the merger, MSI properly controverted this speculation with a sworn affidavit in opposition to Pick's motion to vacate the renewal. Finally, the district court sufficiently articulated reasons in support of its decision by incorporating by reference the arguments set forth in MSI’s opposition.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
H. Con. Res. 201 Agreed to January 27, 1998

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Wednesday, January 28, 1998, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m.

on Tuesday, February 3, 1998; that when the House adjourns on

Thursday, February 5, 1998, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m.

on Wednesday, February 11, 1998; and that when the House

adjourns on Thursday, February 12, 1998, it stand adjourned until

12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 24, 1998, or until noon on the

second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first;

and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of

business on Friday, February 13, 1998, pursuant to motion made

by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this

concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon

on Monday, February 23, 1998, or such time on that day as may

be specified by the Majority Leader, or his designee, in the motion

to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members

are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent

resolution, whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority

Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively,
H. Con. Res. 201—2

to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05461]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Special Medical Advisory Group, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, that the Special 
Medical Advisory Group (the Committee) will meet on April 6, 2022, from 
9:00 a.m. EDT to 3:30 p.m. EDT. The meeting is open to the public. The 
public will only be able to attend virtually. Members of the Committee 
may join in person or virtually. Join by phone: 1-404-397-1596, Access 
code 27620910241. Join via Webex (please contact POC below for 
assistance connecting): https://veteransaffairs.webex.com/veteransaffairs/j.php?MTID=m8189db2dec142f2b5ac52cfcf9f302f8.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of 
Veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Veterans Health 
Administration.
    On April 6, 2022, the agenda for the meeting will include 
discussions on Center for Care and Payment Innovation, H.R. National 
Green Alert Act of 2021, reinventing training and research at VA 
facilities, and VA's quality of care priorities, national leadership 
role and the post-pandemic way ahead.
    Members of the public may submit written statements for review by 
the Committee to: Department of Veterans Affairs, Special Medical 
Advisory Group--Office of Under Secretary for Health (10), Veterans 
Health Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 or 
by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3f5e2f0eee2e4e7e5ece3d5c28dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5503140618141211131a1523347b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments will be accepted until close of 
business on Monday, April 4, 2022.
    Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking 
additional information should email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d7b6c7e606c6a696b626d5b4c034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0452455749454340424b4472652a636b72">[email protected]</span></a> or call 202-461-
7000.

    Dated: March 10, 2022.
LaTonya L. Small,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-05461 Filed 3-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Wanda E. TORRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-3002

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted January 29, 2018 *

Decided January 30, 2018

*263Wanda E. Torrence, Pro Se

Prashant Kolluri, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee United States Bankruptcy Court

Matthew G. Summers, Attorney, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE, Hugh C. O’Donnell, Attorney, Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman, LLP, Hugh C. O’Donnell, Edric S. Bautista, Ballard Spahr LLP

Before William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge

Order

We held in Torrence’s bankruptcy case that her contention that the bankruptcy judge, district judge, litigants, and lawyers all had discriminated against her because of her hearing difficulties had been waived and was baseless as a matter of fact. *Torrence v. Comcast Corp.,*663 Fed.Appx. 475, 477-78 (7th Cir. 2016) (nonprecedential disposition).

Disregarding our conclusion, Torrence then sued the Bankruptcy Court and multiple additional parties, demanding compensation for the supposed discrimination. The suit was dismissed as barred by principles of issue and claim preclusion. Tor-rence appeals again.

The district court’s decision is correct. Torrence appears to believe that as long as she names new parties, she can continue litigating questions that have been resolved against her. That belief is incorrect. Our earlier decision binds Torrence whether or not it binds anyone else, and third parties such as the defendants in this suit therefore are entitled to its benefit. See *Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation,*402 U.S. 313, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971) (discussing principles of nonmutual preclusion).

The current suit is frivolous for this and other reasons, which need not be explored. Torrence must understand that if she continues to litigate claims or -theories that have been resolved against her, she will be ordered to pay financial penalties for frivolous litigation.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 QualMark Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
D. Johnston, President & Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


/s/ Charles D. Johnston
-------------------------------------
Charles D. Johnston
President & Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2005

In connection with the Quarterly Report of QualMark Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
A. Scalese Chief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


/s/ Anthony A. Scalese
-------------------------------------
Anthony A. Scalese
Chief Financial Officer & Principal
Accounting Officer
November 14, 2005

A signed original of these written statements required by section 906 have been
provided to QualMark Corporation and will be retained by QualMark Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 4.15


 





AMENDMENT 2 TO SENIOR SECURED PROMISSORY
NOTE 


 


This AMENDMENT 2, dated
November 21, 2017 (the “Amendment”), to that certain senior secured promissory note of ADial Pharmaceuticals,
LLC, as predecessor-in-interest to Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), in the original principal amount
of $287,500.00, dated May 1, 2017, as amended, (the “Note”) held by FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund LLC
(“Holder”) is entered into by and between the Company and Holder. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined
shall have the meanings set forth in the Note.


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
the Maturity Date of the Note is December 4, 2017;


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Holder desire to extend the Maturity Date to February 5, 2018 upon the terms and conditions set forth herein;


 


 NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Note as follows:


 


		1.	The Maturity Date shall mean, and be extended to, February 5, 2018.



		2.	On the Maturity Date the Company shall pay to Holder, and the Holder will accept, the sum of $375,000 in full and complete
satisfaction of the principal sum of the Note and all accrued and unpaid interest thereon.



		3.	The Note, as amended by this Amendment, contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto
regarding the subject matter thereof, and there are no agreements, warranties or representations which are not set forth therein
or herein. This Amendment may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing duly signed by or on behalf of the
parties hereto.



		4.	This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the local laws
of the State of New York applicable to agreements made and to be performed entirely within the State, without regard to conflict
of laws principles.



		5.	This Amendment may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



 





	Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

         

         

         

         

        By:   /s/ William Stilley                                  

        Name: William Stilley

        Title: Chief Executive Officer



 

 	FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund LLC

         

        By FirstFire Capital Management LLC, its manager

         

         

        By:   /s/ Eli Fireman                                                   

        Name: Eli Fireman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6250

GEORGE ALBERT HOOD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY W. JOHNS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02130-FL)

Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Albert Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley, 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George Albert Hood, a detainee pending commitment 

proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2006), appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 

2006 & Supp. 2010) petition, which sought his release. The 

district court has since dismissed the 18 U.S.C. § 4248 action 

in accord with a joint stipulation of the parties and Hood has 

been released. As a result of Hood’s release, “there is no 

wrong to remedy and an appeal should . . . be dismissed . . . 

when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals 

cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the 

appellant.” United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th Cir. 

2008) (quoting Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996)) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
      32. 1







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 report of Fuqi International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.







/s/
      Yu
      Kwai Chong


Yu
      Kwai
      Chong


Chief
      Executive Officer and President


April
      29,
      2008








/s/
      Ching Wan Wong


Ching
      Wan
      Wong


Chief
      Financial Officer


April
      29,
      2008







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Fuqi International, Inc. and will be retained by Fuqi International,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00226

- CR

The State of Texas

v.

Terri Sanders §

§

§

§

§

§ From the 97th District Court

of Montague County (2015

- 0255M

- CR )

December 14 , 2017

Opin ion by Justice Meier

Dissent by Justice FitzGerald

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

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

the trial court is affirme d.

It is further ordered that Appellant The State of Texas shall pay all costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 204 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 204

Honoring the members of the United States Armed Forces who served, and 
  the families of members of the United States Armed Forces who lost 
 their lives or were injured, during the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam 
                                  War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1998

   Mr. Ryun submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Honoring the members of the United States Armed Forces who served, and 
  the families of members of the United States Armed Forces who lost 
 their lives or were injured, during the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam 
                                  War.

Whereas during the Vietnam War a cease-fire was traditionally observed during 
        Tet, the Vietnamese holiday that celebrates the lunar new year;
Whereas the Viet Cong declared a truce that was to last from January 27 to 
        February 2, 1968;
Whereas on January 31, 1968, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong launched a 
        military campaign that became known as the Tet Offensive;
Whereas during the Tet Offensive a Viet Cong assault team breached the walls of 
        the United States embassy in Saigon before being defeated by members of 
        the United States Armed Forces;
Whereas 5 members of the United States Armed Forces were killed during the 
        attack on the embassy;
Whereas 1,000 members of the United States Armed Forces lost their lives during 
        the 2 weeks of fighting that constituted the Tet Offensive; and
Whereas January 31, 1998, is the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the Tet 
        Offensive: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress honors--
            (1) the members of the United States Armed Forces who 
        served during the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War, especially 
        those who served and lost their lives; and
            (2) the families of the members of the United States Armed 
        Forces who lost their lives or were injured during that 
        offensive.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1


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 Annual Report of Triangle Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garland S. Tucker, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


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





/s/ GARLAND S. TUCKER, IIIGarland S. Tucker, IIIChief Executive OfficerMarch 6, 2013
# Official Journal C 67/2005

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 67 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4818 March 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 67

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4818 March 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2005/C 067/1 | Special report No 9/2004 on Forestry Measures within Rural Development Policy, together with the Commission's replies | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Auditors

2005/C 067/1

Special report No 9/2004 on Forestry Measures within Rural Development Policy, together with the Commission's replies

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN