alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50437

Summary Calendar

_____________________

LONNIE D. CLARK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NORTH CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-95-CV-47)

_________________________________________________________________

May 22, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lonnie D. Clark pleaded guilty to mail fraud concerning

misrepresentations he made to obtain insurance policies. His

conviction was affirmed by this court. United States v. Clark, No.

94-10833 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished). Clark appeals from the

dismissal, as frivolous, of this subsequent action against North

Central Life Insurance Co. as frivolous. Clark contends generally

that his federal constitutional rights were violated by North
- 2 -

Central and that it violated Texas insurance and deceptive-tradepractices law regarding an insurance policy purchased by Clark.

Clark does not contend that the district court erred by

holding his federal-law claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994). Clark has failed to brief the relevant issue for

appeal regarding those claims. See e.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)

(court will not raise and discuss legal issues not asserted by

appellant).

Moreover, Clark has not provided this court with a basis for

finding that the policy on which this action is based is different

from one on which his fraud conviction was based. Clark’s federal

fraud conviction and the facts underlying that conviction would

serve as a successful defense against Clark’s state-law claims.

See Koral Indus. v. Security-Connecticut Life Ins. Co., 802 S.W.2d

650, 651 (Tex. App. 1990). Accordingly, the dismissal of those

claims as frivolous was not an abuse of discretion. See Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Clark’s appeal is frivolous;

accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

As we have done in a separate appeal by Clark decided

contemporaneously with this appeal, Clark v. MIC Life Ins. Co., No.

96-50444 (5th Cir. 1997) (unpublished), Clark is warned that any

additional frivolous appeals filed by him, particularly appeals in

which any of the insurance companies he pleaded guilty to

defrauding are named as appellees, will invite the imposition of
- 3 -

sanctions. We repeat that warning here, and caution Clark that, to

avoid sanctions, he should review any pending appeals to ensure

that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.

DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED
Order issued January 28 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00816 - CV

——————————— CUROCOM ENERGY LLC A ND CURO HOLDINGS CO. LTD ,

Appella nt s/Cross - Appellees

V. WOONG SOON EEM AND JASON KIM, Appellees WOOLIM RESOURCES DEVELOPMEN T COMPANY , LTD., WOOLIM ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC AND WOOLIM CONSTRUCT ION COMPANY, LTD . , Appellees/Cross - Appellants On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2009 - 06630

MEMORANDUM ORDER On October 10, 2014, Curocom Energy LLC and Curo Holdings Co. Ltd (collectively, “ Curocom ” ) filed an appeal of the trial court’s “ Order Granting in2

Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Judgment Non Obstante Verdicto ” signed on August 19, 2014 and a Final Judgment signed on September 3, 2014. On December 5, 2014, Woolim Resources Development Company, Ltd., Woolim Energy Holdings, LLC, and Woolim Construction Company, Ltd. (collectively, “ Woolim ”) filed a cross

- appeal. Curocom filed its opening b rief on April 13, 2015. Neither appellees Woong Soon Eem and Jason Kim nor appellees/ c ross - a

ppellant s Woolim have filed briefs. On September 11, 2015, Curocom filed a motion requesting that this Court (1) dismiss Woolim’s cross appeal for want of prosecuti on and (2) set Curocom ’s appeal for submission without briefs from appellees Kim and Eem. We grant the motion. Cross

- a ppellant s Woolim ha ve failed to timely file a brief in their cross appeal

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38. 8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified that their cross appeal was subject to dismissal, Woolim did not respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). Accordingly, we grant Curocom’s motion and dismiss Woolim’s cross - appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. The appeal by Curocom remains pending. Appellees Eem and Kim have failed to file a response brief in Curocom ’s pending appeal

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(b). After being notified that the Court will set this appeal for submission without the appellees ’ brief s , appell ees did not3

respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38. 9 (a ). Accordingly, the Curocom appeal will be set for submission without appellees’ briefs. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland

.
No. 12-7021.

#### Shepard *v.*Baker, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 14

To amend the amount of grants received under chapter 1 of title I of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. BENNETT) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and

Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the amount of grants received under chapter 1

of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Educational Equity

5 Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMOUNT OF GRANTS.

7 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) is amended—
2

•S 14 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A) of section 1005(a)(2),

2 by striking the second sentence and inserting ‘‘The

3 amount determined under this sentence shall be the

4 average per pupil expenditure in the United

5 States.’’; and

6 (2) in each of sections 1201(b), 1221(c), and

7 1241(b), by striking ‘‘in the State (or (A) in the

8 case where the average per pupil expenditure in the

9 State is less than 80 percent of the average per

10 pupil expenditure in the United States, of 80 per11 cent of the average per pupil expenditure in the

12 United States, or (B) in the case where the average

13 per pupil expenditure in the State is more than 120

14 percent of the average per pupil expenditure in the

15 United States, of 120 percent of average per pupil

16 expenditure in the United States)’’ and inserting ‘‘in

17 the United States’’.

Æ
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|No chart available.                                                                                 
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Oklahoma Natural Gas % of Total Residential Consumers Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 151

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit payments under

a State plan to certain vaccine manufacturers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit

payments under a State plan to certain vaccine manufacturers.

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

3 SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT TO VACCINE MANUFACTUR4 ERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(a)(32) of the Social

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(32)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara8 graph (B);

9 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub10 paragraph (C) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
2

•S 151 IS

1 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub2 paragraph:

3 ‘‘(D) nothing in this paragraph shall be

4 construed to prevent the making of such a pay5 ment to a manufacturer of a childhood vaccine

6 under a contract with the State, pursuant to

7 which the manufacturer—

8 ‘‘(i) supplies without charge doses of

9 childhood vaccines to providers administer10 ing such vaccines to individuals eligible to

11 receive medical assistance under the State

12 plan,

13 ‘‘(ii) replaces such vaccines as needed,

14 and

15 ‘‘(iii) charges the State agency the

16 price under the most recent bid (deter17 mined once such bid price is made public)

18 submitted by the manufacturer to the Cen19 ters for Disease Control with respect to the

20 Centers for Disease Control childhood im21 munization program, plus a reasonable fee

22 to cover shipping and handling of returns

23 for doses administered by providers to indi24 viduals eligible to receive medical assist25 ance under the State plan.’’.
3

•S 151 IS

1 (b) AGREEMENTS WITH THE STATE.—Section

2 1902(a)(27) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(27)) is

3 amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘under the State plan’’ and in5 serting ‘‘under the State plan and with any entity

6 that is a manufacturer of a vaccine under a contract

7 with the State under section 1902(a)(32)(D)’’; and

8 (2) by striking ‘‘such person or institution’’

9 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘such person, in10 stitution, or entity’’.

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 this section shall apply to services furnished on or after

13 June 1, 1993.

Æ
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 Miller Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Angelo
      Napolitano, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:




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




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







Dated:   February
                8, 2008/s/  Angelo
                NapolitanoAngelo
                Napolitano
              Chief
                Executive Officer and
              Chief
                Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Miller Industries, Inc. and will be
      returned by Miller Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History:                                                       
|                                                                    
|Kansas Natural Gas % of Total Electric Utility Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|Kansas Natural Gas % of Total Electric Utility Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.81   | 0.91   | 0.87   | 0.83   | 0.64   | 0.80   | 0.75  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.64   | 0.44   | 0.38   | 0.28   | 0.19   | 0.24   | 0.36   | 0.37   | 0.40   | 0.47  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.38   | 0.40   | 0.36   | 0.28   | 0.23   | 0.15   | 0.20   | 0.22   | 0.27   | 0.25  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.21   | 0.20   | 0.24   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26144-26145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12594]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-824]


Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Japan: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of 
antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is extending 
the time limit for the preliminary results of the review of certain 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. This review 
covers the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doreen Chen, Robert Bolling or Stephen 
Jacques at 202 482-0413, 482-3434 or 482-1391, respectively; Office of 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(``the Act'') are references to the provisions effective January 1, 
1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the 
Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act.

Extension of Preliminary Results

    The Department has determined that it is not practicable to issue 
its preliminary results within the original time limit. (See Decision 
Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Enforcement Group III to Robert LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, May 5, 1998.) The Department is extending the time 
limit for completion of the preliminary results until August 31, 1998 
in accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
    The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to 
be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.

[[Page 26145]]

    Dated: May 6, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 98-12594 Filed 5-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Order entered January 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01470-CR

CHRISTINE KAY WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 062724

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax 

www.airquality.org 

December 17, 2010 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 466 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 466, Solvent Cleaning, for revision 

to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 466 was amended by the District’s Board of Directors 

on September 25, 2008, and recently amended again on October 28, 2010. Please also 

forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. 

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

(sent via e-mail) 

Attachments: 

1. SIP Checklist Rule 466 

2. 2008 Underline/Strikeout Version 

3. 2010 Final Version of Rule 466 

4. 2010 Underline/Strikeout Version of Rule 466 

5. Public Notice Evidence 

6. Resolution 

7. Public Comments 

8. Rule Evaluation Form 

9. Non-EPA Test Methods 

10. Board Memo 

11. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)