alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David OLIVARES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40575 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 23, 2018

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee David Olivares, Pro Se

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After pleading guilty, David Olivares was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 210 months for conspiring to possess with the intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and 60 months for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The judgment was entered in July 2016, and he did not directly appeal. Approximately eight months later, Olivares filed a pro se, self-styled “Motion to Run Sentences Concurrent.” He now appeals from the district court’s orders denying that motion and denying his subsequent motion seeking reconsideration of the denial. Olivares argues that, in light of *Dean v. United States,*— U.S.—, 137 S.Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017), which he describes as limiting the effect of the consecutive sentencing requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court abused its discretion in failing to modify his sentence so that his prison terms would run concurrently.

A judgment of conviction that includes a .prison sentence “constitutes a final judgment,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b), and a district court may not correct or modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed, except in those specific circumstances enumerated by Congress in § 3582(b) and (c), *see United States v. Bridges,*116 F.3d 1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997). Olivares does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his motion for concurrent sentences falls under any provision of § 3582(b) or (c). Also, because the district court did not indicate that it was construing the motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, much less provide Olivares with the notice and warnings required before re-characterizing a pro se motion as a first § 2255 motion, the motion for concurrent sentences did not arise under § 2255. *See Castro v. United States,*540 U.S. 375, 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003).

Olivares’s motion for concurrent sentences was an unauthorized motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. *See United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Olivares has thus appealed from the district court’s denial of a “meaningless, unauthorized, motion” and its subsequent refusal to reconsider that denial. *See id.*at 142. The judgment of the district court is 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.
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Michigan EAVS Jurisdictions:

83 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

7,297,900 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

3,400,532 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

590,172 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

485,916 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 90.6% 

In Person 3.7% 

Online 2.5% 

Other 1.7% 

Mail, Email, Fax 1.5% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

58.9% In-Person 

Election Day

2,614,123 

58.1% 

Mail 

1,656,814 

36.8% 

In-Person 

Early 

223,644 

5.0% 

Other 

5,819 

0.1% 

Total Voting Locations8: 3,287 

Total Poll Workers9: 33,331 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

100.0% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

100.0% 

Scanners 

0.0% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

DREs with 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 1,800,770 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 93.3% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 98.6% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 1.4% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Allowed drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation ✔ audit 

Compliance/ ✔ procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election -- tabulation audit 

✔ Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
No. 11-1470.

#### McCaskill *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.24.1

 



 

Jack W. Schuler

28161 North Keith Drive

Lake Forest, Illinois 60045

 

February 4, 2014

 

Re:  Confidential Disclosure Agreement dated February 6, 2013

 

Dear Jack:

 

We would like to extend the term of the above-referenced Confidential Disclosure Agreement between you and Metabolix, Inc. for an additional term of one (1) year ending on February 6, 2015. If you agree to this extension, please so indicate by signing below and return a copy of this letter to my attention.

 

	
 
    	
METABOLIX, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   Sarah P. Cecil
    
	
 
    	
Name:   
    	
Sarah   P. Cecil
    
	
 
    	
Title:   
    	
General   Counsel
    


 

Accepted and agreed:

 

	
/s/   Jack W. Schuler
    	
 
    
	
Jack   W. Schuler
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:   
    	
2/5/14
# C_2021278EN.01005801.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/58

---

Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Moio v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (moio.care)

(Case T-276/21)

(2021/C 278/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moio GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: E. Grande García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark moio.care — Application for registration No 17 938 097

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2021 in Case R 1034/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as it adversely affects the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as it adversely affects the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision, in so far as a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was established in relation to the earlier EU mark No 16 395 055, ‘Molicare’; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision, in so far as a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was established in relation to the earlier EU mark No 16 395 055, ‘Molicare’;

| — | in the further alternative, annul the contested decision, in so far as a likelihood of confusion was established for the goods claimed in Class 5 and the goods Data processing equipment; Peripheral devices for data reproduction; Mobile apps; Mobile data receivers; Mobile data communications apparatus; Transmitters [telecommunication]; Sensory software; Telecommunications software in Class 9; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul the contested decision, in so far as a likelihood of confusion was established for the goods claimed in Class 5 and the goods Data processing equipment; Peripheral devices for data reproduction; Mobile apps; Mobile data receivers; Mobile data communications apparatus; Transmitters [telecommunication]; Sensory software; Telecommunications software in Class 9;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### IN the INT. OF: L.V.W., JR., a Minor

3727 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/14/2017

CP-45-JV-0000252-2014 (Monroe)

Affirmed
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Guam EAVS Jurisdictions 

1 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

55,941 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

11,989 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

10,433 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 766 

In-Person 2,133 

Online 0 

Motor Vehicle Office 38 

Public Assistance 

Office 1,217 

Disability Office 0 

Military Recruitment 

Office 0 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 0 

Registration Drives 7,835 

Other Sources or Not 

Categorized 0 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

In-Person E-Day 

35,408 

95% 

By Mail 

809 

2% 

In-Person Early 

1,042 

3% 

Other Mode 

127 

0% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 37,386 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 25 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 102 



8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 



1 1 

0 0 0 0 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

✔ Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

✔ 13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

✔ Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.
<PAGE>
 
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549


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


                                    FORM 8-K


                                CURRENT REPORT
                    PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


       Date of Report (Date of Earliest Event Reported):  April 21, 1997



                            STERLING SOFTWARE, INC.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)



         DELAWARE                1-8465                 75-1873956
     (State of              (Commission             (IRS Employer
       Incorporation)           File Number)          Identification No.)




300 CRESCENT COURT, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TEXAS        75201
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)           (Zip Code)




      Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (214) 981-1000
<PAGE>
 
ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS.

     On April 21, 1997, Sterling Software, Inc. issued a press release
announcing its agreement to purchase the business comprising the Software
Division of Texas Instruments Incorporated. A copy of the press release is filed
as Exhibit 99.1 hereto and is incorporated herein by this reference.


ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.

     (c)  Exhibits:
          -------- 

     Exhibit
     Number  Exhibit
     ------  -------

      99.1   Press release, dated April 21, 1997, issued by Sterling Software, 
             Inc.

                                      -2-
<PAGE>
 
                                   SIGNATURE

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.


                              STERLING SOFTWARE, INC.



                              By:  /s/  Don J. McDermett, Jr.
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Don J. McDermett, Jr.
                                 Vice President, Legal

Dated:  April 21, 1997

                                      -3-
<PAGE>
 
                               INDEX TO EXHIBITS
                               -----------------


 
 
 
EXHIBIT
NUMBER     EXHIBIT
---------  -------
99.1       Press release, dated April 21, 1997, issued by Sterling Software, 
           Inc.
Exhibit 99.1

          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 ChrisKen  Partners Cash Income
Fund L.P., a Delaware limited  partnership  (the "Company"),  on Form 10-QSB for
the period  ending March 31,  2003,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  John F.  Kennedy,  Chief
Executive  Officer of ChrisKen  Income  Properties,  Inc., the managing  general
partner 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
and based on my review of the Report:

     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.




                           By:      /S/JOHN F. KENNEDY
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    John F. Kennedy
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc.,
                                    Managing General Partner
                                    ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P.

                                    May 15, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to  ChrisKen  Partners  Cash  Income Fund L.P.  and will be retained by
ChrisKen  Partners  Cash Income Fund L.P. and  furnished to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Damien FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John DOE, Editor in Chief/Senior Editor; Jane Doe; K T B S, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-30216

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 7, 2018

Damien Ford, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Damien Ford, Arkansas prisoner # 143035, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of district court’s dismissal of his suit as untimely with respect to his state law claims and for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on which relief could be granted. His motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. By filing his motion to proceed IFP, Ford challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Ford has not shown that he has a non-frivolous appellate claim. He does not address the district court’s conclusion that his § 1983 claims failed because he did not name state actors as defendants. He has thus waived any challenge he may have had to this determination. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

For Ford’s state law claims, we look to state law governing limitations. *See Cruz v. Louisiana ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety and Corr.,*528 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008); *Fluor Eng’rs & Constructors v. So. Pac. Transp. Co.,*753 F.2d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 1985). Ford’s argument that his state law claims should be considered timely because he filed suit soon after he obtained a copy of the article is unavailing because he has not alleged fraud, *see Kassees v. Satterfield,*2009 Ark. 91, 303 S.W.3d 42, 45 (2009), nor has he shown that he acted reasonably, *see Alexander v. La. State Board of Private Investigator Examiners,*211 So.3d 544, 562 (La. Ct. App.), *cert. denied,*221 So. 3d 855 (La. 2017). Because *643Ford has not shown that the district court erred in certifying that his appeal was not taken in good faith, his IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. His motion to correct is likewise DENIED.

This dismissal and the district court’s dismissal each count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1761-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Ford has another strike in *Ford v. Ward,*No. 5:16-cv-340, 2016 WL 6476947 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 31, 2016). As he has now accumulated three strikes, Ford is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*

 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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 95-41028

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

JOHN M BUSHMAN, not individually but as

Trustee for the C & J Revocable Trust,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF CORINTH,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-191)

August 30, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John M. Bushman, as Trustee for the C & J Revocable Trust,

appeals the district court’s order of summary judgment upholding

the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance enacted by the City of

Corinth. After an independent review of the record, we can find no
-2-

genuine issue of material fact. The City’s refusal to grant

appellant a special use permit was rationally related to its

legitimate interest in preventing the open display of goods and

merchandise and the noise and movement of large trucks needed to

transport mobile homes in and out of the area. See City of

Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 105 S. Ct.

3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985); Howard v. City of Garland, 917 F.2d

898 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the City was entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Because appellant is not a prevailing

party under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court did not err by

failing to award him attorneys’ fees.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.
#### Michael SCHAEFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara CEGAVSKY, Secretary of State, State of Nevada, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15961

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Michael Schaefer, Pro Se

Lori M. Story, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV — Nevada Office of the Attorney *936General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a Nevada election statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal. *Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.,*813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Schaefer’s action was proper because the issues involved were actually litigated and decided in Schaefer’s prior federal court action. *See Taylor v. Sturgell,*553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Howard v. City of Coos Bay,*871 F.3d 1032, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth issue preclusion elements under federal law).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# In Ukraine, U.S.-Military-Linked Labs Could Provide Fodder for Russian Disinformation

/ Published March 9, 2022

by Matt Field | March 9, 2022 | The Bulletin

"US officials are trying to prevent the Russian military from capturing pathogens stored in US-affiliated research labs in Ukraine, where they could potentially mischaracterize activities at the facilities."

**Read More...**
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”), I, Daniel R. Sheehan, Chief Executive Officer of Professional Holding Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certify that:

 

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

| Dated: March 30, 2020 | /s/ Daniel R. Sheehan          |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------|
|                  | Name: Daniel R. Sheehan        |
|                  | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

1