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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 98-10122

_____________________________________

LINDA GUADARRAMA; TERRI LYNN MOORE,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

JOHN VANCE, ET AL.,

Defendants,

JOHN VANCE; NORMAN KINNE, Individually and in his 

Official Capacity,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-723-D)

______________________________________________________

December 8, 1998

Before DAVIS, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court denied the defendant's motion for summary

judgment based on qualified immunity on grounds that genuine issues

of material fact were presented. The district court did not

specifically identify those issues of material fact and we have

reviewed the record to determine whether the district court erred

in reaching this conclusion. See Colston v. Barnhart, 146 F.3d 282
2

(5th Cir. 1998) (order denying rehearing en banc). Upon review of

the record, we agree with the district court that genuine issues of

material fact are presented. We therefore lack jurisdiction to

further review the district court's judgment.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(11)
              - multimedia_image(47)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141771(47)
              - connect_social_media(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(11)

## By Location

              - louisiana(1)

## By Year

              - (-)2022(47)

Photography  Mameyes River Flood

Photography  Grand Forks Flooding

Photography  Grand Forks Flooding

Photography  Flooded Cattle Ranch

Photography  Flooded Gaging Station

Photography  Measuring Historic Atlanta Floods on Interstate 20

Photography  Pedernales River at Hamilton Pool Crossing after September 1952 Flood

Photography  USGS Measures Flooding in Louisiana

Photography  Measuring Flow in a Flooded Forest

Photography  LP Field, 2010

Photography  Little Missouri River at Medora ND Comparison

Photography  Floodwater at Wild Rice River

Photography  Floodwater at Wild Rice River

Photography  Floodwater at Wild Rice River

Photography  Floodwater at Wild Rice River

Photography  Floodwater at Wild Rice River

Photography  Floodwater at Wild Rice River

Photography  USGS Research on the Red River in Fargo

Photography  Work Continues. . . .

Photography  Washed Out Bridge, Snake Creek Near Whitesburg

Photography  Tandem Tracking

Photography  Devils Lake Basin Flyover

Photography  Kissengen Spring, F

Photography  Yellowstone Tracking Boat

Photography  Deploying Lift Net,  Everglades National Park

Photography  Drowned Alligator Hatchling

Photography  Gage House Comparison

Photography  Westhope Comparison

Photography  Aerial View of Subsiding Marshes in the Mississippi River Delta

Photography  Lake Darling Comparison

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 For Immediate Release
    
    Contact: Ann Storberg, Investor Relations(517) 324-6629
 AMERICAN
PHYSICIANS CAPITAL, INC. AUTHORIZES ADDITIONAL SHARE REPURCHASES AND ADOPTS STOCK
REPURCHASE PLAN UNDER RULE 10b5-1
 East Lansing,
      Corporate Description
 http://www.apcapital.com.
 Forward-Looking Statement
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 _________________________
 Form 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 March 22, 2006
 
 ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION
  Washington
    
    0-25361
    
    91-1629814(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation)
    
    (Commission File No.)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 1100  112th Avenue N.E., Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98004-4504
 (425) 451-8060
     ̈
  ̈
  ̈
  ̈




---



##### 



Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
  Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits
 (c)
    
    Exhibits.99.1
    
    Press Release of Onyx Software Corporation dated March 22, 2006.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATIONDate:  March 22, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Robert J. ChamberlainName:
    Robert J. ChamberlainIts:
    Chief Financial Officer 3




---



##### 



INDEX TO EXHIBITS
 ExhibitNumber

    Description99.1
    
    Press Release of Onyx Software Corporation dated March 22, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



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 Challenger Powerboats, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  April  16,  2007



/s/  Laurie A. Phillips

Laurie A. Phillips
President
Chief  Executive  Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 462 AND 

REVISING THE COMMENT TO RULE 

460 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES 

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 498

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2017, upon the recommendation of the 

Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before 

adoption at 47 Pa.B. 3959 (July 22, 2017), and a Final Report to be published with this 

ORDER:

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of 

Pennsylvania that Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462 is amended and the 

Comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 460 is revised, in the attached 

form. 

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and 

shall be effective April 1, 2018.

Additions to the rules are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rules are shown in bold and brackets.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



<Table>
<Caption>
           Subsidiaries of
  American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.                     Jurisdiction of Incorporation
  ---------------------------------------                     -----------------------------
<S>                                                           <C>
American Medical Systems, Inc.                                            Delaware

American Medical Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.                              Australia

American Medical Systems Benelux B.V.B.A.                                  Belgium

American Medical Systems Canada Inc.                                       Canada

American Medical Systems France S.a.r.l.                                   France

American Medical Systems Deutschland GmbH                                  Germany

American Medical Systems Iberica S.L.                                       Spain

American Medical Systems U.K. Ltd.                                     United Kingdom

AMS Research Corporation                                                  Delaware

AMS Sales Corporation                                                     Delaware

Cryogen, Inc.                                                            California

Influence Medical Technologies, Ltd.                                       Israel
</Table>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 14, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01044-CV RYAN FONTAINE AND PROGRE SSIVE PAYMENT SYSTEMS, Appellants V. ESSENCE MASERATI, EWING HURST, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006-00419-2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith Appellants’ brief in this case is over due. By postcard dated April 13, 2021, we notified appellants the time for filing th eir brief had expired. We directed appellants to file a brief a nd an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellants that failure to file their brief by that time might result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date , appellants have not f iled a brief, filed an extension motion, nor otherw ise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

201044F.P05 /Crai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RYAN FONTAINE, PROGRESSIVE PAYMENT SYSTEMS, Appellants

No. 05-20-01044-CV V. ESSENCE MASERATI, EWING HURST, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006-00419- 2020. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees ESSENCE MASERATI and EWING HURST, LLC recover their costs of this appeal from appellants RYAN FONTAINE and PROGRES SIVE PAYMENT SYSTEMS.
Judgment entered May 14, 2021
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 Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.



Dated: April 27, 2005



/s/ DONALD H. HUNTERDonald H. Hunter Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to Harbor Global Company Ltd. and will be retained by Harbor Global Company Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 288 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 288

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          July 9, 2013.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other 
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
the bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back 
to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2020027EN.01006401.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/64

---

Action brought on 21 November 2019 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ultrasun)

(Case T-805/19)

(2020/C 27/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ultrasun AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Registration of EU figurative mark in colour containing the word element ‘ultrasun’ — Registration No 17 898 795

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 531/2019-4

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
1 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.

2 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________
No. 97-10080 Summary Calendar

__________________

TOMMY LEE DORA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-1664-T

- - - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Tommy Lee Dora, Texas prisoner # 224582, appeals following the

dismi ssal of his case under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 of the AEDPA. 2

Because Dora's federa l habeas petition was filed prior to the

enactment of the AEDPA, the district court erred by applying the

AEDPA to Dora's suit. See Lindh v. Murphy , 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2068

(1997), cert. denied

, 118 S. Ct. 739 (199 8)(an interveningdecision; the AEDPA does not apply to noncapital cases that were

pending on the date of its enactment).

The judgment of the district court dismissing the habeas

corpus petition under the AEDPA is VACATED and the action is

REMANDED for further consideration under pre-AEDPA standards.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129268 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129268 COA: 259475 Genesee CC: 89-040498-FC TERRENCE L. LUSTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 24, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
Frank MORRIS Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 5, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00479

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF J.B ., a

Mentally Ill Person,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- MH

- 2027

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The above cause has been set for formal submission ON BRIEFS ONLY before this

Court on February 26, 2015, before a panel consisting of Justice Alvarez , Justice Chapa , and

Justice Pulliam

.

It is so ORDERED on this 5 th day o f February , 2015.



### PER CURIAM

Attested to:

_______________________________ K eith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

YVONNE BOHAM,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Selya, Circuit Judge,

Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

Douglas J. Beaton for appellant.

Mark E. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom

Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, was on brief, for

appellee.

June 28, 2004
-2-

Per Curiam. The instant appeal was consolidated for

argument in this court with, inter alia, an appeal in United States

v. Salinas, No. 03-2376. The opinion in Salinas, issued earlier

today, is dispositive of the question raised in this appeal.

Consequently, for the reasons set forth in our Salinas opinion, we

reverse the district court's venue determination, vacate Boham's

conviction, and remand with instructions to dismiss the indictment

without prejudice for lack of venue. 

Reversed and remanded.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O . P D
- 0 7 1 1
- 1 8

E x p a r t e B R A N D O N J O S E P H A D A M S , A p p e l l a n t

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E E L E V E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

T A Y L O R C O U N T Y
K E L L E R , P . J . , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h H E R V E Y , Y E A R Y a n d S L A U G H T E R , J J . , j o i n e d . The fac t that J oe and J ustin wer e differ ent victims is not enoug h, by itself, to distinguish this

case from Ashe v. Swenson. I n Ashe , three or four masked men robbed six people at a poker g ame. 1 2 The defe ndant was tried for robbing one of six play ers and acquitted. The defe ndant was 3 subsequently tried for robbing one of the ot h er p o k er p l ay ers. As in the prese nt case , the 4

397 U.S. 436 (1970). 1 Id. at 437. 2 Id. at 438-39. 3 Id. at 439. 4ADAM S CONCURRENCE — 2

prosec utions in Ashe involved multipl e victims.
But the defe nse in Ashe applied to all of the victims. Ashe’s defe nse—and the only rational basis for the acquittal in the first prosec ution—was that he was not one of the masked robber s. So 5 even thoug h there wer e six victims in Ashe , the basis for acquitting the defe ndant applied to all of them—the def

endant wa s either one of masked r obbers or he wa s not. T he prese nt case is differ ent beca use Appellant’s self-de fense claim as to J ustin d o es n o t

nece ssarily apply to J oe. Evidence in the first prosec ution sug g ested that J ustin was an ag g ressor in the fig ht but that J oe wa s merely try ing to br eak it up. A jury ’s conclusion that Appellant acte d in self-de fense ag ainst J ustin would not rationally require it to also believe that he acte d in self-de fense
ag ainst J oe. Consequently , unlike in Ashe , the prior prosec ution did not nece ssarily resolve ag ainst the State an issue of

fac t cruc ial to the second pr osecution.
I join the Court’s opinion. Filed: Oc tober 9, 2019 Publis h

Id. at 441, 445.

5
Jessie D. QUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1402

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SCPR-20-0000710
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

_________________________________________________________________

IN RE WINIFRED Y. TENNO, Petitioner.

_________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Nakasone,

assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the petition to resign and surrender license to practice law in the State of Hawai# i, filed by attorney Winifred Y. Tenno, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that Petitioner Tenno has fully complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g). Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-20-0000710 02-DEC-2020 07:47 AM Dkt. 7 OGPIT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Tenno, attorney number 5373, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i, effective with the filing of this order, though Petitioner shall be permitted to retain the paper license as a memento, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(b).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 2, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Karen T. Nakasone

2