alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vanessa DUNDON; Jade Kalikolehuaokal Wool; Crystal Wilson; David Demo; Guy Dullknife, III; Mariah Marie Bruce; Frank Finan; Israel Hoagland-Lynn; Noah Michael Treanor, on behalf of themselves and all similarlysituated persons Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Kyle KIRCHMEIER; Morton County; City of Mandan; Jason Ziegler; Stutsman County; Chad Kaiser; Does 1-100 Defendants-Appellees American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota; American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s)

No. 17-1306

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 18, 2017

Filed: November 14, 2017

Alexsis Beach, Rachel Lederman, San Francisco, CA, Melinda Power, West Town Law Office, Chicago, IL, Lauren C. Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center, Eugene, OR, Mara E. Verheyden-Hilliard, Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Randall J. Bakke, Shawn A. Grinolds, Bradley Neuman Wiederholt, Bakke & Grinolds, Bismarck, ND, for Defendants-Appellees

Courtney Bowie, American Civil Liberties Union, Sioux Falls, SD, for Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s) American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal the district court’s1 denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction, wherein they sought an order prohibiting the appellees from-using excessive force in responding to pipeline protests and prayer ceremonies. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and have ensured that this dispute was not rendered moot by the completion of any portion of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota. We likewise have thoroughly reviewed the district court’s analysis of the Dataphase factors in its well-reasoned opinion and fínd no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of injunctive relief. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B; see also Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (setting out factors court must weigh to determine whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction); Coyne’s *&*Co., Inc. v. Enesco, LLC, 553 F.3d 1128, 1131 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review).

1

. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
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 Quarterly Report of Powerhouse  Technologies  Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Jay Elliot, Chairman of the Board and 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 to 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)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Jay Elliot*
--------------------
Jay Elliot
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Date:  December 8, 2004

*     This page was previously filed without proper signature notation as a
      result of an error by the EDGAR filing service company.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0827

_____________________________
D ARON I VY D OWNING , Petitioner,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Original Jurisdiction.

August 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

L EWIS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Daron Ivy Downing, pro se, Petitioner.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      685,943
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               154,085
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 43,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            935,230
<PP&E>                                      745,409
<DEPRECIATION>                              334,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,438,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       714,062
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    7,964
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  507,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,438,977
<SALES>                                     437,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            557,627
<CGS>                                       262,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               997,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            728,855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (439,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (439,782)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.08)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (223)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,233
<PP&E>                                          21,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,320)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,367
<SALES>                                          4,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,027
<CGS>                                            3,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (18)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (837)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,637)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 17

Naming the CVN–76 aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 13 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. DOLE, Mr. CRAIG, Mr.

MCCAIN, Mr. MACK, Mr. SMITH, Mr. LOTT, Mr. NICKLES, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. COATS, Mr. KYL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. ROBB) introduced the following joint resolution; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

JOINT RESOLUTION

Naming the CVN–76 aircraft carrier as the U.S.S. Ronald

Reagan.

Whereas President Ronald Reagan served his country with

honor and distinction as the 40th President of the United

States;

Whereas President Reagan initiated defense policies that restored the military power and prestige of the United

States;

Whereas President Reagan’s policy of peace through

strength, invigorated by an increase and strengthening of

the Armed Forces of the United States under his leadership, led to the demise of Soviet bloc communism and the

expansion of democracy around the world;
2

•SJ 17 IS

Whereas President Reagan made a lifelong commitment to

rallying the free world to support men and women elsewhere around the world who are struggling to obtain

freedom and democracy;

Whereas President Reagan in every way honored the men

and women who have volunteered to wear the uniforms

of the Armed Forces of the United States;

Whereas President Reagan kept faith with the men and

women veterans of service in the Armed Forces of the

United States;

Whereas President Reagan served as Commander in Chief of

the Armed Forces of the United States with unmatched

dignity, style, and grace;

Whereas President Reagan supported a strong Navy and a

global United States military presence; and

Whereas President Reagan paid homage to, and symbolized,

the American Dream: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the CVN–76, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier of

4 the Navy, shall be named the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dangelo M. ERVING Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1073

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2017

Filed: February 2, 2018

*282Martin Conboy, IV, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dangelo M. Erving, Pro Se

Jessica L. Milburn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dangelo Erving appeals a district court1 order revoking his supervised release. But Erving was released from custody on November 3, 2017, two weeks before his appeal was submitted to this panel. Before we can proceed to the merits of Erving’s arguments on appeal, we must satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction. We are “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (per curiam). Because Erving’s post-revocation sentence of incarceration has been discharged, we can consider the appeal of his revocation sentence only if there is some ongoing “collateral consequence” of the revocation or incarceration. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). In other words, he must show that he has a “concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole.” Id.

Erving seeks only reversal of the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. His post-revocation sentence is discharged, he received no new term of supervised release, and he has not identified any collateral consequences that amount to a concrete and continuing injury. Under these circumstances, Erving presents no case or controversy for us to resolve.

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska,
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fabian PINEDA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12435 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(December 8, 2017)

C. Brock Brockington, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney Service— Northern District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Before MARCUS, WILSON and ROSNEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Paul Twyman, appointed counsel for Fabian Pineda-Garcia in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *636
      *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Pineda-Garcia’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
# Amtsblatt C 12A/17.

| | ISSN 1725-2407 |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 12A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 52. Jahrgang17. Januar 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2407

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 12A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

52. Jahrgang17. Januar 2009

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Bekanntmachungen |
| | VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN |
| | Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO) |
| 2009/C 012A/01 | Reserveliste — Allgemeines Auswahlverfahren EPSO/AD/96/07 — Referatsleiter(in) (AD 9) deutscher oder französischer Sprache für das Informationsbüro des Europäischen Parlaments in Luxemburg | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

V   Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO)

2009/C 012A/01

Reserveliste — Allgemeines Auswahlverfahren EPSO/AD/96/07 — Referatsleiter(in) (AD 9) deutscher oder französischer Sprache für das Informationsbüro des Europäischen Parlaments in Luxemburg

1

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

V Bekanntmachungen

VERWALTUNGSVERFAHREN

Europäisches Amt für Personalauswahl (EPSO)

| 17.1.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 12/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 12/1

---

RESERVELISTE

   (1)

ALLGEMEINES AUSWAHLVERFAHREN EPSO/AD/96/07

REFERATSLEITER(IN) (AD 9)

deutscher oder französischer Sprache

für das Informationsbüro des Europäischen Parlaments in Luxemburg

(2009/C 12 A/01)

Reserveliste in absteigender Reihenfolge:

| 1. | SCHLÜTER Britta |
| --- | --- |

1.

SCHLÜTER Britta

| 2. | VAVRIK Stephan |
| --- | --- |

2.

VAVRIK Stephan

Die Reservelisten gelten bis zum 31. Dezember 2010. Ihre Geltungsdauer kann verlängert werden.

---

(1)  Auf ausdrücklichen Wunsch einer erfolgreichen Teilnehmerin oder eines erfolgreichen Teilnehmers wird ihr bzw. sein Name nicht veröffentlicht.

---
<PAGE>   1
Penske Motorsports, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Penske Motorsports, Inc. for the periods ended September 30, 1998
and 1997, as indicated in our report dated October 26, 1998; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-692 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Detroit, Michigan

November 12, 1998
EXHIBIT 32





CORTRONIX BIOMEDICAL ADVANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.





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 Cortronix Biomedical Advancement Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending August 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yoel Palomino, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: December 14, 2012
By:
/s/Yoel PalominoName:
Yoel PalominoTitle:
Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Director








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
Exhibit
          33.2
 **REPORT
            ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEC REGULATION AB SERVICING
            CRITERIA**
 
 MSX
            International, Inc. (MSXI) (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing
            compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1,
            2006
            through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria
            applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. MSXI
            has
            used the servicing criteria communicated to MSXI by the servicer, Ford
            Motor
            Credit Company ("Ford Credit"). to assess compliance with the applicable
            criteria. Accordingly, servicing criteria 1122(d)(4)(i)-(ii) are applicable
            to
            the activities performed by MSXI (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) of
            holding and safeguarding retail installment sale contracts as described
            in
            MSXI's service level agreement with Ford Credit. MSXI has concluded that
            all
            other servicing criteria are not applicable to the activities it performs
            with
            respect to the asset-backed securities transactions covered by this report.
            The
            transactions covered by this report include the asset-backed securities
            transactions involving retail installment sale contracts for which the
            Asserting
            Party served as an Item 1122 party participating in the servicing function,
            that
            were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with
            the
            Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of
            1933 (the
“Transactions”).
 
 The
            Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
            Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting
            Party has
            complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
            as of
            December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Transactions
            taken as a whole.
 
 Grant
            Thornton LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
            an
            attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable
            Servicing
            Criteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set
            forth in
            this assertion.
 
 
 MSX
            International, Inc.
 
 
 
 By:        /s/
            Frederick K. Minturn Frederick
            K. Minturn
  Title: 
            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
 Date:
            March 15, 2007
Untitled Document


Exhibit
  10.1 

 CONSENT
  OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

      We consent to the
  use of our report dated February 19, 2002, relating to the financial statements
  of Sanofi-Synthelabo, that appear in such Registration Statement. 

      

	 	ERNST &
        YOUNG Audit

        Represented by 

	 	 	 	 
	 	
	/s/ Valérie Quint	/s/ Dominique Thouvenin
	 	 	Valérie Quint                  
            and 	Dominique Thouvenin


      Paris, France 

       June 24, 2002
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 31, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00965-CV 

CRAIG STEVENS BROOKS, Appellant 

V. 

ALLISON JEAN GIESLER, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 417-54173-2018 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard 

dated August 23, 2018, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant 

to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would 

result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated August 23, 2018, we informed appellant 

the docketing statement in this case was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the 

docketing statement within ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal without further 

notice. By letter dated December 13, 2018, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been 

filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide 

verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written 

documentation appellant had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs within ten 
 –2– 

days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal 

without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required 

documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

180965F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CRAIG STEVENS BROOKS, Appellant 

No. 05-18-00965-CV V. 

ALLISON JEAN GIESLER, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 417-54173-2018. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Evans and Brown participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee ALLISON JEAN GIESLER recover her costs of this 

appeal from appellant CRAIG STEVENS BROOKS. 

Judgment entered December 31, 2018