alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-10486.

#### Clifford Pearson, Petitioner v. Dave Dormire, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.

565 U.S. 838, 132 S. Ct. 146,

181 L. Ed. 2d 64,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6119.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10642

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEPHEN WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-487-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stephen Walker has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Walker has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10642 Document: 00513501683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2016
No. 15-10642

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-10642 Document: 00513501683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2016
##### 



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
  
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
    
    The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Thomas L. Monahan III
 /s/ Timothy R. Yost
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE  PERIOD  ENDED  JUNE 30,  2000 FOR  AREMISSOFT  CORPORATION  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                               18,932
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        24,155
<ALLOWANCES>                           (507)
<INVENTORY>                           1,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     49,214
<PP&E>                                6,676
<DEPRECIATION>                       (4,673)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       65,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                22,152
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 15
<OTHER-SE>                           42,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         65,212
<SALES>                              48,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     48,524
<CGS>                                10,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        10,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     29,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       8,914
<INCOME-TAX>                          2,028
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   6,886
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          6,886
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.40


</TABLE>
No. 10-7275.

#### Anthony Benjamin, Petitioner v. Lorettan Wallace, et al.

562 U.S. 1105, 131 S. Ct. 835,

178 L. Ed. 2d 552,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9734.

December 13, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3062 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3062

   To repeal changes made by health care reform laws to the Medicare 
    exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for 
                   hospitals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2019

 Mr. Burgess (for himself, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Vela, 
  Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Marshall, Mr. 
Babin, Mr. Walker, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Loudermilk, 
   Mr. Mullin, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Cole) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal changes made by health care reform laws to the Medicare 
    exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for 
                   hospitals, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Access to Higher Quality 
Health Care Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM PROVISIONS LIMITING MEDICARE 
              EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PHYSICIAN 
              REFERRALS FOR HOSPITALS.

    Sections 6001 and 10601 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 684, 1005) and section 1106 of 
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 
111-152; 124 Stat. 1049) are repealed and the provisions of law amended 
by such sections are restored as if such sections had never been 
enacted.
                                 <all>
```
sponte dismiss a frivolous complaint after giving the plaintiff notice and

an opportunity to oppose the dismissal), abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008). Appellant also asserts on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in directing the director of the Nevada Department of Corrections to forfeit deductions of time that appellant had previously earned to reduce his prison sentence under NRS 209.451(1)(d). As discussed above, appellant's complaint was not supported by existing law, and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by directing the sanction. See NRS 209.451(1)(d); see also Bahena v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 126 Nev. , 235 P.3d 592, 598 (2010) (explaining that this court reviews a district court's decision to impose a sanction for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'



### , J. rdesty

Parraguirre

Cherry

'We deny appellant's transcript request filed on November 16, 2011, because no hearings were held in the district court.

2cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge Amadeo J. Sanchez Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Ely White Pine County Clerk

3
NO. 01-15-00284-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON 

LATRICE HARRIS, 

Appellant, 

v.

HIGHLAND KNOLLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 

Appellee.

DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

Appellee Highland Knolls Community Association (“Appellee”)

files this Designation of Lead Counsel pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 6.2 to notify the Court that Frank O. Carroll III, 

State Bar No. 24082785, of Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey PC, 

2800 Post Oak Blvd., 57th Floor, Houston, Texas 77056, makes an 

appearance in this appeal as lead counsel of record for Appellee. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00284-cv

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

11/10/2015 2:43:47 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/10/2015 2:43:47 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey PC

_____________________________________

FRANK O. CARROLL III

Texas State Bar No. 24082785

GREGG S. WEINBERG

Texas State Bar No. 21084150

2800 Post Oak Blvd., 57th Floor

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: 713-840-1666

Facsimile: 713-840-9404

fcarroll@rmwbhlaw.com

gweinberg@rmwbhlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this document is 252 words, as calculated by 

the word count feature of Microsoft Word 2010 (PC Edition).

_________________________________

FRANK O. CARROLL III
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served upon the parties listed below by facsimile, 

messenger, regular U.S. Mail, certified mail, return receipt requested 

and/or electronic service in accordance with the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure on this the 10th day of November, 2015.

Via Regular Mail and

Via Certified Mail/RRR: 7010 1870 0003 4219 8360

Ms. Latrice L. Harris

2310 Enchanted Park Lane

Katy, TX 77450

_____________________________________

Frank O. Carroll III
No. 10-5682.

#### Darius Duron Elam, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 815,

178 L. Ed. 2d 549,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9535.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 965, 131 S. Ct. 461, 178 L. Ed. 2d 294, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7952.
Figure 2. Scatterplot of state-level coverage for ≥1 dose HPV vaccine using single- and dual-frame designs, National Immunization Survey- Teen, 2017

Abbreviations: HPV = human papillomavirus vaccine.

Note: r=0.99; “Dual”=landline & cell-phone, “Single”=cell-phone
No. 10-11273.

#### Alison Levon Boyd, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 876, 132 S. Ct. 237,

181 L. Ed. 2d 134,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6920.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 233.
CAPE HATTERAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE P.O. Box 9 47109 Light Plant Road BUXTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27920-0009 (252) 995-5616 (800) 454-5616 FAX (252) 995-4088

A Touchstone Energy" Cooperative 

# ~ 1:



# - November 19,2010 The Honorable Lisa J ckson Administrator United States Enviro mental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building ( ail Code 1101) 1200 Pennsylvania A e. , NW Washington, D
.C
. 2 60 Re: consideration of Portions of the Final Rule: National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reci procating Internal Combustion Engine (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708) Dear Administrator J ckson: I am writing in suppo of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association's (NRECA) October 19 2010, Petition for Reconsideration of portions of the Final National Emission St ndards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion ngines promulgated on August 20,2010, (75 Fed
. Reg
. 51,570). (Docket EP -HQ-OAR-2008-0708). Cape Hatteras Electric Cooperative (CHEC) is a local electric distribution cooperative serving atteras Island, part of the outer banks of North Carolina. CHEC owns and mai tains over forty miles of radial feed transmission that extends from our deli ery point north of the Oregon inlet bridge to the headquarters facilitie in Buxton, NC. In addition to a high investment in plant, CHEC's load factor i impaired as a result of the large seasonal variations in population. These ~ factors cause CHEC to have the highest wholesale power cost in the state of N rth Carolina. Since wholesale power cost is the single largest expense of a y electric cooperative, CHEC has among the highest retail electric rates in the st te as well
. Compounding this issue, along with the rest of the United States, th local tourist economy on Hatteras Island has suffered greatly since the rece sion of 2008. The numerous foreclosu res and local business failures hav forced many individuals in the tourist/service industry to leave the Island beca se of lack of employment
. NRECA's petition ad resses restrictions contained in the final rule that prohibit the use of small eme ency generating units for peak shaving programs and
www.chec.cooplimits demand reducti n service beginning in 2013 without the addition of

expensive emission r duction technology on units larger than a specified size. CHEC respectfully re uests that the agency reconsider the restrictions on peak shaving and demand reductions contained in the final rules, and amend the rules so as to not diminish he val ue of these programs to our consumer-owners. Please feel free to co tact me at 252-995-5616 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to you r favorable response.



# .L«: f.?-? Susan E
. Flythe Executive Vice Presi ent and General Manager Cape Hatteras Electr c Cooperative

cc: Robert Wayla d Melanie King Kevin Brombe g, SBA
World TB Day
NUMBER 13-12-00716-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE AMANDA ALVAREZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Relator, Amanda Alvarez, filed a petition for writ of mandamus contending that 

the Honorable Arnoldo Cantu, presiding judge of the County Court at Law Number 5 of 

Hidalgo County, Texas, abused his discretion, leaving relator without an adequate 

appellate remedy, by “refusing to permit an evidentiary hearing on [relator]’s motion for 

temporary orders” following a judgment, dated November 15, 2012, modifying a divorce 

decree in trial court cause number F-419-06-5. Relator also requested that this Court 

temporarily stay the November 15, 2012 judgment, which awarded real party in interest, 

Bobby Joe Feliz, the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the parties’ 
2

children. On November 20, 2012, this Court ordered the trial court’s November 15, 

2012 “Final Order in Suit to Modify the Parent Child Relationship” stayed until the 

petition for writ of mandamus and any response may be fully reviewed. On November 

26, 2012, we clarified that the trial court’s separate order, also dated November 15, 

2012 and requiring relator to surrender custody of the children to real party in interest at 

the Mission Police Department, was dependent on the custody judgment and was 

therefore also stayed until further order of this Court. On November 28, 2012, this Court 

received real party in interest’s response to the petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of 

mandamus, response, and record documents provided by the parties, is of the opinion 

that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is DENIED. Further, the stay granted on November 20, 2012 and 

clarified on November 28, 2012 is hereby LIFTED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

28th day of November, 2012.
No. 10-11289.

#### Somsak Saeku, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 877, 132 S. Ct. 239,

181 L. Ed. 2d 135,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6668.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 436 Fed. Appx. 154.
No. 10-6736.

#### Terry Eugene Landry, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1070, 131 S. Ct. 662,

178 L. Ed. 2d 494,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9064,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 10-1524.

#### Oheneba Kwame Gyamfi, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 826, 132 S. Ct. 118,

181 L. Ed. 2d 41,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5830.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

*42Same case below, 416 Fed. Appx. 294.
No. 10-10575.

#### Melecio M. Cardona, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 841, 132 S. Ct. 152,

181 L. Ed. 2d 68,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6354.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 10-10379.

#### Dennys Rivera, Petitioner v. Illinois.

565 U.S. 835, 132 S. Ct. 138,

181 L. Ed. 2d 58,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5404.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 402 Ill. App. 3d 1191, 376 Ill. Dec. 788, 1 N.E.3d 121.
No. 11-5108.

#### Bruce McCree, Petitioner v. William A. Sherrod, Warden.

565 U.S. 890, 132 S. Ct. 269,

181 L. Ed. 2d 158,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5480.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

*159Same case below, 408 Fed. Appx. 990.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY WOLFSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., its successors 

in interest and/or Assigns; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35792 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06064-BHS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jeremy Wolfson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 

action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL 

Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016)

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-35792 

(summary judgment); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 

1040 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wolfson’s claims 

for defamation and replevin against defendants Bank of America, N.A., Merscorp

Holdings, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as well as his 

claims against defendant MTC Financial d/b/a Trustee Corps, because Wolfson 

failed to raise a genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding these claims. See 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (establishing that the party with 

the burden of proof at trial must “make a showing sufficient to establish the 

existence of an element essential to that party’s case” to survive summary 

judgment).

The district court properly dismissed Wolfson’s FDCPA claims because 

Wolfson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Bank of America, 

N.A., is considered a debt collector under the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692a(6)(F)(iii) (excluding from the definition of debt collector a party seeking 

to collect any debt owed where the debt concerned was not in default at the time it 

was acquired); De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Invs., 641 F.3d 1071, 1074-75 & n.3 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (explaining that under the FDCPA a “debt collector does not include 

those mortgage service companies and others who service outstanding debts for 

others, so long as the debts were not in default when taken for servicing” (citation 
3 20-35792 

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Wolfson’s quiet title claims because 

Wolfson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Kobza v. Tripp, 18 

P.3d 621, 623-24 (Wash. App. 2001) (plaintiff in quiet title action must be “in 

peaceable possession” of property).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ONTEST PROCEDURES FOR FLUORESCENT LA'vIP BALLASTS"" STA'\DBYMODE U.S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Avellue, SW 

### Washington, DC 20585 Room 8£-089 february 2, 2009 

### Purpose The Departmentis holding this public meeting to discuss 

### tlle notice ofproposed rulemaking on 

### test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

### in standby mode. This meeting is intended to 

### familiarize interested stakeholders with 

### DOE's statutory requirements andproposedtest procedures andprovide an opportunity for public comment. 

### Agenda 10:30
- IO:35nm Welcome 10:35 -11:00 am Introductions, and Agenda Review 11 :00
- II:15 am Ol)cning Remarks 11: 15
- 11:30 am Regulatory HistOf)' and Interpretation ofActive Mode, StlUldby Mode. and OffMode 11:30
- 11 :45 

### am Scope ofApplicability 11:45
- 12:00 <1m Standby Mode O,'erview 12:00 -12:15 am New TestConditions for :\'Ieasuring Standby Mode Power 12:15 am -12:30 am Test Procedure Measurements and Burdens 12:30
- 12:45 am Othcl'lssues and Comments; Closing Remarks 12:45 am Adjourn
No. 10-10910.

#### Jerome Williams, Petitioner v. Kenneth Romanowski, Warden.

565 U.S. 856, 132 S. Ct. 189,

181 L. Ed. 2d 97,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6198.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.