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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50519

 

CHRISTOPHER HUTSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; 

CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS; 

MAX J. WESTBROOK; STACY 

HOLLEY; JANE DOE #2, Nurse;

ELIZABETH WATSON, Police

Chief; TERRY KEEL, Sheriff,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-96-CV-572

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Hutson requests permission to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal so that he may appeal from the district

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees. To

proceed IFP on appeal, Hutson must demonstrate financial

eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Carson v.

Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). 
No. 97-50519

-2-

Hutson argues that material fact issues remain which would

preclude summary judgment with respect to his claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

Rehabilitation Act, and the Texas Tort Claims Act that he had

been denied adequate medical care while in the Travis County

Central Booking Facility. We have reviewed the record and

Hutson’s brief and hold that the district court did not err in

granting summary judgment.

 Hutson has not presented a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and

the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The

appellees’ motion to strike the Clerk’s order is DENIED.

MOTIONS DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Andrew CHERRY, Appellant, v. 440 WEST, INC., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1966

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32  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 of Tintic Gold Mining Company (the "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), we, George Christopulos, CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board of the Registrant, and Hugh Coltharp, Secretary/Treasurer and a director of the Registrant, 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 our knowledge and belief: (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant. Dated: March 21, 2007 /s/ George P. Christopulos George P. Christopulos, CEO, President, CFO, and Chairman of the Board  Dated:  March 21, 2007 /s/ Hugh N. Coltharp Hugh N. Coltharp Secretary/Treasurer and director
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER





I, Tami J. Story, certify
that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report
on Form 10-QSB of Earth Search Sciences, Inc.;





2. Based on my knowledge, this report
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
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 and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:





a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and





c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting; and





5. The registrant's other certifying
officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):





a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and





b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.








Date:
      April 21, 2008
            /s/
      Tami J. StoryTami J.
    StoryChief Financial
      Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James ARCHAMBAULT, also known as James Skunk, Appellant.

No. 02-2411.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 21, 2003.

Decided May 12, 2004.

*60Thomas J. Wright, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward G. Albright, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pierre, SD, for Defendants Appellant.

James Archambault, Chamberlain, SD, pro se.

Before BYE, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Archambault appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment against him, contending nonmember Indians cannot be tried in both tribal and federal court for the same offense conduct without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. Archambault also appeals the district court’s order quashing his subpoena of a tribal treasurer, who Archambault posits would present evidence of the financial relationship between the tribe and the federal government, in support of his claim the tribe’s authority to prosecute nonmember Indians was delegated rather than inherent. Because we conclude both of Archambault’s contentions are controlled and precluded by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *United States v. Lara,*— U.S. -, -, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 1639, 158 L.Ed.2d 420, - (2004) (holding tribes have inherent, rather than delegated, power to prosecute nonmember Indians and thus prosecutions brought by a tribe and the federal government for same offense conduct are brought by different sovereigns and do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause), we affirm the district court.

1

. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
EXHIBIT 31.2
------------

I, Richard Connelly, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CT Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: November 18, 2005

/s/ RICHARD CONNELLY
--------------------
Richard Connelly, Chief Financial Officer
Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              11,801
<SECURITIES>                                       113,193
<RECEIVABLES>                                       46,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5,693
<INVENTORY>                                         17,520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   189,970
<PP&E>                                             120,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                      85,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     254,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               50,702
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               215
<OTHER-SE>                                         178,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       254,369
<SALES>                                             22,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    43,403
<CGS>                                               12,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       25,981
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    25,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (6,698)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (6,698)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (6,698)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.31)



</TABLE>
Antwon Deatrak BUSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1700

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 8, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Robert Paul BROWN, Jr., Appellant, v. Michael Scott BROWN, Appellee.

No. 4D16-2005

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN the INTEREST OF J.M.P., a Child.

A.L.P., Petitioner, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem Program, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-3144

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION 

I, James W. Landrum, President,certify that: 

1.     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Golden Chief Resources, Inc.; 

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report; 

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report; 

4.     I amresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

            a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant is made known to us by others within the Corporation,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

            b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

            c)       disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     I havedisclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

            a)       all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; 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. 

Date: June 25, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50682

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ELIAZAR ARECHIGA-DUARTE, also known as Jose Eliazar ArechigaDurate,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-1903-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Eliazar Arechiga-Duarte pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation. The advisory guidelines range of imprisonment was 6 to 12 months. 

At sentencing, the district court found that Arechiga-Duarte’s criminal history

score did not represent his criminal history adequately and increased his

criminal history category from I to IV, resulting in a recommended range of 15

to 21 months of imprisonment. The district court, in an upward departure,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 21, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-50682 Document: 00512182869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2013
No. 12-50682

sentenced him to 21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised

release. On appeal, Arechiga-Duarte does not challenge the district court’s

upward departure based on his criminal history. Rather he argues that the term

of supervised release was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because

the district court failed to make case-specific findings to justify it. Because

Arechiga-Duarte did not raise his objections in the district court, review is for

plain error. United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th

Cir. 2012). 

Under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), supervised release is not ordinarily imposed on

aliens who will likely be deported. When § 5D1.1(c) applies, “supervised release

should not be imposed absent a determination that supervised release would

provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and

circumstances of a particular case.” Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329;

§ 5D1.1, comment. (n.5). Arechiga-Duarte had 10 prior convictions, for which

the district court specifically found that it was necessary to increase his term of

imprisonment considering the sentencing factors found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

which include protecting the public and deterring criminal conduct. ArechigaDuarte has not challenged the upward departure or the findings supporting it. 

Arechiga-Duarte does not address why these unchallenged findings are not

sufficient to support the imposition of a term of supervised release considering

the same § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, Arechiga-Duarte has not established,

under the applicable plain error standard, that his sentence was either

procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See Puckett v. United States, 556

U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-50682 Document: 00512182869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2013
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8427]



[[Page 17241]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28650A; 812-13538]


ING Investments, LLC, et al.; Notice of Application; Correction

Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 24, 2009, in FR Doc. E9-6391, on 
page 12407 of volume 74, in the second column, the date should read 
March 17, 2009.

    Dated: April 8, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8427 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-139576 and No. 333-146569) and Form S-8 (No. 333-126978) of our report dated March 30, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Manitex International, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.



|            |  | 
|----------- |  | 
|/s/ UHY LLP |  | 
|UHY LLP     |  | 

Sterling Heights, Michigan

March 30, 2010
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2580 

To suspend temporarily the duty on insulated food or beverage bags with 

outer surface of man made fiber, with removable inner liner of hard 

plastic, certified by the importer as containing over 40 percent by weight 

of recycled plastics, not to exceed 300 mm in length. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on insulated food or beverage bags with outer surface of man made fiber, with 

removable inner liner of hard plastic, certified by the 

importer as containing over 40 percent by weight of 

recycled plastics, not to exceed 300 mm in length. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2580 IS

1 SECTION 1. INSULATED FOOD OR BEVERAGE BAGS WITH 

2 OUTER SURFACE OF MAN MADE FIBER, WITH 

3 REMOVABLE INNER LINER OF HARD PLAS4 TIC, CERTIFIED BY THE IMPORTER AS CON5 TAINING OVER 40 PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF 

6 RECYCLED PLASTICS, NOT TO EXCEED 300 

7 MM IN LENGTH. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

9 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

10 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

11 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Insulated food or beverage 

bags with outer surface of 

man made fiber, with removable inner liner of hard plastic, certified by the importer 

as containing over 40 percent 

by weight of recycled plastics, 

not to exceed 300 mm in 

length (provided for in subheading 4202.92.08) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

14 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

15 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS