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

. 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 C IR

. 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 Lan a1 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

Plaintiffs sued the city of Commerce 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 a nd 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 con stitutional 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, an d analysis made by the

district court in its Memorandum Order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss signed

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

reconsideration signed April 15, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          40,745
<SECURITIES>                                    36,765
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                        71
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,050
<PP&E>                                         111,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,842
<BONDS>                                        148,629
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        148
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   285,373
<SALES>                                         10,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,317
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    24
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,417
<INCOME-TAX>                                       945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,472
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000746631
<NAME> ASDAR INC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   119
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,104
<OTHER-SE>                                    (95,485)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       119
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (58,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,831)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Joseph F. Fisher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Platinum Underwriters
Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd. Date: May 3, 2005
    
    /s/ Joseph F. FisherBy: Joseph F. FisherExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Barbara J. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. Reginald E. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. ED 106951

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: May 21, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Aleksandra Hudson, 120 South Central Avenue, Suite 150, Clayton, MO 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: Barbara J. Williams, Acting Pro Se,

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Reginald E. Williams appeals the trial court's judgment granting in part and denying in part his Motion to Modify Child Support and Calculate Amounts Due and Owing he filed against Barbara J. Williams. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The trial court's judgment is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
CHARLESTON.

#### Baker *v.*Tappan, *et al.*

Submitted September 13, 1904.

Decided November 29, 1904.

1. Supreme *Court.*— Jurisdiction—-Appeal.

If, pending an appeal, the parties, by Consent and agreement cause such further proceedings to be had ,in the court below as dispose of the whole subject matter of the controversy, this Court is- thereby deprived of its jurisdiction and the appeal wil4 be dismissed without costs: (p. 349).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wood County.

Suit by S. B. Baker against D. R. Tappan and others. From the decree for plaintiff, F. P. Moats, trustee, appeals.

*Dismissed.*

Y. B. ARCHER, for appellant.

MoClxjeR & McClueR, for appellee.

POEEENBARGER, PRESIDENT :

By a decree, entered by consent of all tbe parties, and carried into full and complete execution, since tbe appeal in this case was allowed, settling all the rights of tbe parties, respecting the subject matter of their controversy, this Court has been deprived of its jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed without costs.

S. B. Baker and D. R. Tappan were equal partners in the hotel business, but a third party held a lien by deed of trust on *350Tappan’s interest for purchase money. Owing to compliea-'tions and adversities in the course of the business, Baker caused ;a receiver to be appointed who took charge of the business and •was managing it, when the trust creditor caused Tappan’s interest to be advertised for sale. Thereupon, on petition of the receiver, the court enjoined the sale and, upon errors assigned against the action of the court in refusing to dissolve the injunction, an appeal was allowed. Soon afterwards a decree, directing' a sale of the property, consented to by the creditor, was entered, a sale was made under it and the sale confirmed. '.Thus the subject matter of the litigation has been withdrawn ¿and disposed of by act of the parties. No matter what this Court might do, there is no sale to be made or prevented now, ¿and a reversal of the order appealed from would be without 'the slightest effect. The ease, therefore, is ruled by principles ¿announced in *Elbon*v. Hamrick, 55 W. Va. 236, (46 S. E. 1029); *State v.*Lambert, 52 W. Va. 248; *Taylor*v. *Maynor,*46 W. Va. 588 and *Hoffman*v. *Ammons,*decided at the present term. In ■these cases, the subject is fully discussed and many authorities ■cited.

For the reason stated, the appeal will be dismissed without .costs.

tv • , *Uism%ssed.*
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Brian J. Roney, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Pointe Holdings Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Intentionally omitted.     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: November 9, 2006                   /s/ Brian J. Roney   Brian J. Roney       Chief Financial Officer
**Es**

**. kr**  **L OFFiCE**  **OF THE**  **AlTORNEY GENERAL**  **AUSTIN :Lw**  , II"0 ,. I-mlsI 1uNa HonorableFoster **Davis** January 13,

County Attorney Foerd County Crowell,Texas Dear Xr. Davis: Re: Tax to Rur

This will acknow aation of January 11, 19 Whether or not a to a rebate of Fe ror opeimf0n or, t is entitled gasolinewed or sald.school 

# et v your httentionis te Bevenue Aot’ot the of 934, as the same 1s 86, U.S.C.A. thrdugh 437, ug Title 26, Chapter 1481, he above described

# item, volume above referseato, lion is imposed on gasoline rter thereof, except in ree Commissioner with the aptax shall n& apply in the gasoline. ot fin% that there is wlthln the Aot ther than where the gasoline is sold to However,you are advised that any opinionby the Attorney General of' Texas regarding this law would be beyond the scope of the authority ~ofthe Attorney Caneralof Texcis,

as to auny

**oifiaer** or the Fe%eral **GOY** ernmentbeing boubd, an% you are respectfullyrequested

. to consult the proper tax authoritiesof the Federal governmentrelating to the interpretation of thSs ActRon. Foster Davis, January 13, 1939, Page 2

of Congressand applicationof the law.

Fe regretvery much that we are unable to advise you, other than is herein above set out, and we hope that we have been of some service to you in this respect by the pointingout of the law. Your8 very truly
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 278 

Expressing support for the designation of April 10, 2023, as ‘‘Venture Smith 

Freedom Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2023 

Ms. DELAURO (for herself and Mr. COURTNEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of April 10, 2023, 

as ‘‘Venture Smith Freedom Day’’. 

Whereas, in about 1729, Venture Smith was born free in 

West Africa and, in 1739, was seized from his home and 

enslaved in New England; 

Whereas 258 years ago, in the year 1765, Venture Smith, at 

the age of 36, purchased his freedom; 

Whereas Venture Smith went on to free his family from the 

bondage of slavery; 

Whereas Venture Smith became a successful landowner, businessman, and author in the United States; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 278 IH 

Whereas, in November 1798, Venture Smith was the first African American to write and publish his own autobiography; 

Whereas Venture Smith was the first person to write and 

publish the phrase, ‘‘My freedom is a privilege which 

nothing else can equal’’; 

Whereas Venture Smith died a free man on September 19, 

1805, in Connecticut; and 

Whereas April 10 would be an appropriate date to designate 

as ‘‘Venture Smith Freedom Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘Venture Smith Freedom Day’’, which 

3 would recognize the 258th anniversary of Venture Smith 

4 purchasing his freedom and going on to become a land5 owner, businessman, and author in Connecticut. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF
J. ROE BUCKLEY/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development
Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P.,
(the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 and filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies
with the requirements of that section. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant. /s/ J. Roe BuckleyName: J. Roe BuckleyDate: May 14, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1

        JOINT CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
           FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(B)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Protocall Technologies Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarters ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bruce
Newman, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

June 12, 2006


/s/ Bruce Newman
-----------------------------------------------
Bruce Newman
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2





                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Joseph A. Orlando, as Principal Financial Officer of Leucadia National
Corporation - Arizona (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

     (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30, 2003
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  August 13, 2003
                                           By:  /s/ Joseph A. Orlando
                                                --------------------------
                                                Joseph A. Orlando
                                                Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Leucadia National Corporation-Arizona and will be retained by
Leucadia National Corporation-Arizona and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
William WISE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-0729

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended August 31, 2011 of Alarming Devices, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Andre Luiz Nascimento Moreira, President, Secretary/Treasurer, Director 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:





1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: December 20, 2011





/s/Andre Luiz Nascimento Moreira


Name:  Andre Luiz Nascimento Moreira


Title: President, Secretary Treasurer and Director


(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 2

- 1518 LT Case No

. 20 22

- CF

- 000048

_____________________________
R ONALD E. B RAMBLE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County

. Howard O. McGillin, Jr.
, Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Jane C. Almy, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, A ssistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach
, for Appellee.

January 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ALLIS , L AMBERT , and E ISNAUGLE , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________