alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5

TH 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 5

TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10512

Summary Calendar

JOEL R. MARICLE; JEREMY STONE; GABRIELLE LINTON;

JEFF FOSTER; LEONARD RAY HARRISON; JEFF JONES;

JAY E. LOWE; DAVID McCULLOUGH; JOYCE OAKS, on

behalf of Renador Oaks; DIXIE PATAPOFF; ELLA REYNOLDS

RELFORD; BOBBY RAY REYNOLDS, JR.; QUINTIS WEATHERALL;

RICHARD LYNN WILSON; BILLY HIGHTOWER; MYREO SAMPSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LANA BIGGERSTAFF, Individually and in her capacity as Chief of

Police of Commerce, Texas; CITY OF COMMERCE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-3029)

January 8, 1999

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiffs appeal the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their suit against Lana
 

1

 Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 601.051.

 

2

 Radford v. General Dynamics Corp., 151 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 1998).

2

Biggerstaff and the City of Commerce, Texas. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffssued the city ofCommerce and its police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

contending that the city’s “Do Not Drive Policy” and “Towing Policy” deprived them

of their property rights without due process of law. These policies prohibit a driver

who cannot produce current proof of automobile liability insurance from taking the

vehicle from the scene of a traffic stop and allow the police to impound any such

automobile. Texas law provides that drivers cannot “operate” a vehicle unless proof

of insurance is “established.”1

The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the

plaintiffs had not alleged the violation of a constitutional right. Specifically, the court

held that the “Do Not Drive Policy” was permitted by the Texas insurance statute and

that this statute previously was found constitutional by this court. Further, the trial

court found that the “Towing Policy” was constitutional because the failure to

demonstrate proof of insurance provides probable cause for the seizure of the vehicle

and because the postdeprivation remedies provided adequate due process. Plaintiffs

timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim.2 Our review of the record and briefs discloses no reversible error and,
3

accordingly, on the facts as found, the authorities cited, and analysis made by the

district court in its MemorandumOrder granting defendants’ motions to dismisssigned

April 1, 1998, and the Memorandum Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration signed April 15, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
      and
      (b) of


Section
      1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Asia Global Holdings Cor., a Nevada corporation (the
      "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:




The
      Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Form 10-Q")
      of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Asia Global Holdings Corp. and will be retained by Asia Global Holdings Corp.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




Date:
                May 16, 2008
            /s/
                Michael MakMichael
                Mak, Chief Executive Officer
United States
Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-Q/A
 (Amendment No. 1)
  þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from  to
 COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 001-33865
 Triple-S Management Corporation
  Puerto Rico
    
    66-0555678(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or 
organization)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)1441 F.D. Roosevelt AvenueSan Juan, Puerto Rico
    
    00920(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip code)
 (787) 749-4949
 Not applicable
 þ o
  Large accelerated filer oAccelerated filer þNon-accelerated filer oSmaller reporting company o o þ
  Title of each class
    
    Outstanding at July 17, 2008Common Stock Class A, $1.00 par value
    
    16,042,809Common Stock Class B, $1.00 par value
    
    16,286,489




---



##### 



Explanatory Note
   2




---



##### 



Triple-S Management Corporation
 FORM 10-Q
   PAGEPART I  FINANCIAL INFORMATIONItem 4. Controls and Procedures
    
    4PART II  OTHER INFORMATIONItem 4. Submissions of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
    
    4Item 6. Exhibits
    
    5SIGNATURES
    
    5
 3




---



##### 



Item 4. Controls and Procedures
 Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
  Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
  Part II  Other Information
 Item 4. Submissions of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
  (a)
    
    To elect three Group 1 directors for a three-year term.
  Jose Hawayek-Alemañy, MDFor
    
    
    18,086,997Withheld
    
    
    109,980Adamina Soto-Martinez, CPAFor
    
    
    18,019,757Withheld
    
    
    82,220Jorge L. Fuentes-Benejam, PEFor
    
    
    18,106,729Withheld
    
    
    75,248
 (b)
    
    Amend Article TENTH B of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the
Corporation (Articles).
  (c)
    
    Amend Article TENTH C of the Articles.
  (d)
    
    Approve the Triple-S Management Corporation 2007 Incentive Plan.
  4




---



##### 



Item 6. Exhibits
 Exhibits
    
    Description31.1*
    
    Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer required
by Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a).31.2*
    
    Certification of the Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial
Officer required by Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a).
  
 *
    
    Filed herein. SIGNATURES
  Triple-S Management Corporation
RegistrantDate: October 20, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Ramón M. Ruiz-ComasRamón M. Ruiz-Comas, CPAPresident and
Chief Executive Officer Date: October 20, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Juan J. RománJuan J. Román, CPAVice President of Finance
and Chief Financial Officer 5
|   | (1) | such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Standard Management Corporation. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April 28, 2011                        |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /s/ Steven Turner                     |   |
| Steven Turner                         |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                  |   |
| /s/ Angela C. Rodriguez               |   |
| Angela C. Rodriguez                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer               |   |

----
[No. 29987-9-II.

Division Two.

April 20, 2004.]

#### R.C. Barrett Development, Inc., *Respondent,*v. Derl W. Allred, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 02-2-04807-8, Brian M. Tollefson, J., entered February 14, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, A.C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Hunt, JJ.
Orlando PETERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2140

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13307-13308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. FHWA-2009-0036]


Notice: Letter of Public Notification on the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) State Reports for American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act (ARRA); Information Collection Activity

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration, DOT.
    FHWA is submitting this notification to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for emergency processing to meet Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) requirements.


[[Page 13308]]


SUMMARY: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 
provides the State Departments of Transportation and Federal Lands 
Agencies with $27.5 billion for highway infrastructure investment. With 
these funds also comes an increased level of data reporting with the 
stated goal of improving transparency and accountability at all levels 
of government. According to President Obama, ``Every American will be 
able to hold Washington accountable for these decisions by going online 
to see how and where their tax dollars are being spent.'' The Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) in concert with the Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation (OST) and the other modes within the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) will be taking the appropriate steps 
to ensure that this accountability and transparency is in place for all 
infrastructure investments.
    The reporting requirements of the ARRA are covered in Sections 1201 
and 1512. Section 1201(c)(1) stipulates that ``notwithstanding any 
other provision of law each grant recipient shall submit to the covered 
agency (FHWA) from which they received funding periodic reports on the 
use of the funds appropriated in this Act for covered programs. Such 
reports shall be collected and compiled by the covered agency (FHWA) 
and transmitted to Congress. Covered agencies (FHWA) may develop such 
reports on behalf of grant recipients (states) to ensure the accuracy 
and consistency of such reports.''
    Section 1512 of the ``Jobs Accountability Act'' requires ``any 
entity that receives recovery funds directly from the Federal 
Government (including recovery funds received through grant, loan, or 
contract) other than an individual,'' including States, to provide 
regular ``Recipient Reports.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Winter, 202-366-0175, Director, 
Office of Highway Policy Information, HPPI-1, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Authority: The paperwork reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C., 
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued on March 19, 2009.
James R. Kabel,
Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division, HAIM-10.
 [FR Doc. E9-6748 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 0 02

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JESUS RENTERIA,

APPEL L ANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation, and the trial court assessed

punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. We have received the trial court’s

certification showing that Appellant waived his right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A P P

. P.

25.2(d). The certification is signed by Appellant and his counsel. Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered February 26, 2010

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUB LISH)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5434 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, as the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2006 

Mr. NEY (for himself, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. 

STRICKLAND, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. 

RYAN of Ohio, Mr. GILLMOR, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. REGULA, Mr. BROWN

of Ohio, Mr. TURNER, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. CHABOT, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and 

Mr. BOEHNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LARRY COX POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chil6 licothe, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Larry 

7 Cox Post Office’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5434 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Of5 fice’’. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6404

JIMMY LEE HANEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-150) Submitted: June 9, 2005 Decided: June 16, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy Lee Haney, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lee Haney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year limit for such actions. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Haney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sealy Corporation (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lawrence J. Rogers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, and
Jeffrey C. Ackerman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



June 30,
2009

/s/ LAWRENCE J. ROGERS Lawrence J. Rogers President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ JEFFREY C. ACKERMAN Jeffrey C. Ackerman Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3776 — Vodafone/Oskar Mobile)

(2005/C 140/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 May 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6502

REGINALD T. DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (4:14-cv-04651-JMC)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald T. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald T. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
                                
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          60319
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55236
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    218298             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               348566
<PP&E>                                         330636
<DEPRECIATION>                                 308644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          155499
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                      4472042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    400000
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383023
<SALES>                                        144718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144718
<CGS>                                           99878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.00
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anto nio, Texas

May 17, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00298

- CV

HOWELL CRANE & RIGGING, INC

.,

Appellant

v.

Robert Lee WAMMACK , Jr.,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 09279

Honorable Angelica Jimenez , Judge Presid ing



### O R D E R

Sitting : Patricia O. Alvarez, Jus tice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

On March 3, 2021

, this court set this cause for submission on briefs. On April 1 2, 2021

, Appellant filed a motion for this court to reconsider its decision. The same day , Appellee

submitted a letter clarifying hi s position on oral argument, stating that he did not believe oral

argument w as necessary.

Appellant’s motion for oral argument is DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.1.

It is so ORDE RED May 17

, 202 1

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______ ____________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT