alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SMITH v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.

No. 11703.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 16, 1953.

Herbert & Dombey, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.

Marshall & Smith, Dayton, Ohio, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in an action brought by the administratrix of a deceased brakeman, who was killed while riding on an engine of the appellee railroad company as the result of a collision with a tractor-trailer at a grade crossing, has .been duly considered upon the record and upon the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys. The record fails to reveal any substantial evidence of proximate negligence on the part of the railroad company and there was, therefore, no substantial evidence on which the case should have been submitted to the jury upon the issue of negligence.

We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district judge in refusing to permit appellant to file a second amended petition. We find, moreover, that the failure of the railroad company to equip the locomotive in question with a pilot had no remote connection with the accident resulting in the death of appellant’s intestate. The railroad engine was demolished and numerous cars telescoped and piled up as the result of the collision. The equipment of the locomotive with a pilot could in no aspect have contributed to the prevention of the accident which resulted in the death of appellant’s decedent. The doctrine *res ipsa loquitur*has no applicability to’the facts of this case, for the *163reason that the tractor-trailer which collided with the locomotive was not under the control of the appellee.

An examination of the record reveals that, in his elaborate opinion,1 comprising 35 pages of the typewritten record, the experienced district judge made manifest his well grounded reasons for declining to submit the case to the jury and for granting a directed verdict.

In our opinion, his action was correct and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. Oral opinion.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GlobalSCAPE, Inc. on Form10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Charles R. Poole,President and Chief Operating Officer, and Daniel McRedmond, Vice President ofFinance and Operations, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of GlobalSCAPE,Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Charles R. Poole                     |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Charles R. Poole                         |
| President and Chief Operating Officer    |
| May 17, 2004                             |
|                                     |
|                                     |
| /s/ Daniel McRedmond                     |   |
| Daniel McRedmond                         |
| Vice President of Finance and Operations |
| May 17, 2004                             |
|                                          |        |  |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JASON ANDREW DUNLAP,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 30211

D.C. No. 3:15

- cr

- 00107

- SI

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2018

Portland, Oregon

Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ, ** District

Judge.

Jason Andrew Dunlap (“Defendant”) appeals his sentence, arguing that the

district court miscalculated the applicable guideline range and erroneously

concluded it lacked authority to sentence Defendant below the statutory mandatory

minimum. We have jurisdi ction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

We vacate and remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Reinhar t

, 893

F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2018).

The parties first addressed Reinhar t in Rule 28(j) letters filed shortly before

oral argument . Defendant had previously conceded that the pr ior state conviction

charged in the I nformation triggered a 25

- year mandatory minimum sentence

under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). However, Reinhar t constitutes an intervening change

in the law that may affect the analysis of this issue , and the parties agree that

remand is appropriate to allow the district court to evaluate in the first instance the

potential impact of Reinhart on the applicable statutory mandatory minimum

.

Because we find tha t remand is appropriate in light of Reinhar t

, we decline to

address at this juncture the other issues raised in Defendant’ s appeal

.

VACATED and REMANDED for re sentencing.
STATE EX REL. Darrell TILLERY v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0226

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, they are repetitive and/or unsupported. *See* La.C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4 and 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Guidry, J., recused.
#### Susie Mae WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee.

No. 11343.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 23, 1953.

Decided April 30, 1953.

Mr. David G. Bress, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Alvin L. Newmyer, Jr., and Richard S. Ross, Washington, D. C. , were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. G, with whom Mr. George D. Horning, Jr., Washington, D. G, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, CLARK, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this suit for personal injuries the District Court directed a verdict for the defendant. In our opinion the appellant was not entitled to go to the jury on the theory of *res ipsa loquitur*and the court did not err in finding no substantial evidence of negligence.

Affirmed.
Kelvin L. HAGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-487

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 16, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
STATE of Louisiana v. Timmy W. DOUCET

NO. 2018-KO-0196

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 5, 2018

Denied.
# C_2021474EN.01033401.xml

| 24.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 474/334 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 474/334

---

P9_TA(2021)0077

Equivalence of forest reproductive material produced in the UK ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 March 2021 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the equivalence of forest reproductive material produced in the United Kingdom to such material produced in the Union (COM(2020)0852 — C9-0430/2020 — 2020/0378(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2021/C 474/31)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0852), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0852),

| — | having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9-0430/2020), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9-0430/2020),

| — | having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 27 January 2021 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 27 January 2021 (1),

| — | having regard to Rules 59 and 163 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 59 and 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

| 1. | Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

---

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

---

P9_TC1-COD(2020)0378

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 11 March 2021 with a view to the adoption of Decision (EU) 2021/... of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Decision 2008/971/EC as regards the equivalence of forest reproductive material produced in the United Kingdom

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision (EU) 2021/536.)

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40141

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RENE MOLINA-CUELLAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-942-1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Molina-Cuellar appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after 

removal. For the first time on appeal, Molina-Cuellar argues that the district 

court clearly erred in assessing two criminal history points for his conviction 

of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information and two more points 

for his conviction of making a false statement on a driver’s license application. 

 

* 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

November 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40141 Document: 00514236356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2017
No. 17-40141

2

According to Molina-Cuellar, the criminal conduct from those convictions was 

part of the illegal reentry offense.

As Molina-Cuellar acknowledges, we review the unpreserved challenge 

under the plain error standard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). Even if the district court erred, any such error was not plain. See 

United States v. Valles, 484 F.3d 745, 759 (5th Cir. 2007) (“An error is ‘plain’ if 

it is clear under current law.”). We so held in United States v. Vargas-Garcia, 

434 F.3d 345, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2005), rejecting arguments substantially similar 

to those advanced by Molina-Cuellar. There, as here, because the state crime 

“could be seen as embodying just such conduct severable by time, place, and 

harmed societal interest,” the district court did not plainly err by concluding 

that the criminal conduct was separate from the illegal reentry offense. See 

id. at 350. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-40141 Document: 00514236356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2017
Jonathan MONSANTO-BERRIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-436

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
H.A., the mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-1184

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 10, 2018

H.A., the mother, in proper person.

Karla F. Perkins, for appellee Department of Children & Families; Laura J. Lee (Tallahassee) and Thomasina Moore (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
STATE EX REL. Clifford C. ABSHIRE, III v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0983

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court of appeal before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing *904that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of ADA-ES, Inc.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Michael D. Durham, certify that:

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ADA-ES, Inc. (the
"Company) for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Durham,
Chief Executive 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:

1) 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.

/s/ Michael D. Durham
---------------------
Name: Michael D. Durham
Title: President
Date: March 25, 2005


I, Mark H. McKinnies, certify that:

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ADA-ES, Inc. (the
"Company) for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark H. McKinnies,
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:

1) 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.


/s/ Mark H. McKinnies
---------------------
Name: Mark H. McKinnies
Title: CFO
Date: March 25, 2005
# C_2020370EN.01002301.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/23

---

EUROPEAN INSURANCE AND OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS AUTHORITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2019

(2020/C 370/23)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/about/accountability-and-transparency/budget-and-accounts_en

---
Exhibit 23.0

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Willow Grove Bancorp, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-87214 and 333-110464) on Form S-8 of Willow Grove Bancorp, Inc. of
our report dated July 23, 2004, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of Willow Grove Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2004 and 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30,
2004, which report appears in the June 30, 2004 Form 10-K of Willow Grove Bancorp, Inc.

|/s/ KPMG LLPSeptember 10, 2004
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---
Exhibit 32.1

                        GOOD BUDDY'S COFFEE EXPRESS, INC.
                            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 report of Good Buddy's Coffee Express, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, Scott Massey, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(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.



/s/ Scott Massey
------------------------------------
Scott Massey
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
June 1, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5870 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5870

  To prohibit the negotiation of trade agreements that include waivers 
                      of the ``Buy American Act''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the negotiation of trade agreements that include waivers 
                      of the ``Buy American Act''.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON NEGOTIATING TRADE AGREEMENTS CONTAINING 
              WAIVERS OF THE ``BUY AMERICAN ACT''.

    No funds appropriated for fiscal year 2015 or any year thereafter 
may be used to negotiate an agreement that includes a waiver of the 
``Buy American Act'' (41 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Worldwide Manufacturing USA, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the
period ending September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, John Ballard, 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:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/John Ballard



 John Ballard,

 Chief Financial Officer

November 15, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 

**- 7685** 

MARLON CANADY

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

RODERIC L. TUELL, Building Manager, Unit Manager, employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; BENJAMIN T. ULEP, Doctor, employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; EDDIE PEARSON, Warden, employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; VANCAMP, Sergeant (Male), employed at Sus sex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; GREGORY HOLLOWAY, Warden, employed at Wallens Ridge state Prison, sued individually and official capacity; M. STANFORD, Medical Administrator, employed at Wallens Ridge state Prison, sued indiv idually and official capacity; DANIEL MILLER, Doctor, employed at Wallens Ridge state Prison, sued individually and official capacity; SABRINA LOGAN, Sergeant (female), employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; JERRY D. OATES, United Manager, employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity

,

Defendants

– Appellees,

and

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections, sued individually and official capacity; LOGAN, Sergeant (female)

, employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; JANE DOE, Medical Administrator, employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; J. D. OATES, United Manager, employed at Sussex One State Prison, sued individually and official capacity; K. LAMB, Correctional Officer, employed at Wallens Ridge state Prison, sued individually and official capacity; FRED SCHILLINGS, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections2 Medical Health Services, sued indi vidually and official capacity,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne

, Senior District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv

- 00420

- REP

- RCY )

Submitted : February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Marlon Canady, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM :

Marlon Canady seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing some, but not all, of his claims raised under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012)

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory

a nd collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

-

46 (1949). The order Canady seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accor dingly, we deny Canady’s motion for appointment of counsel

and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and

argument wou ld not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED