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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-50384

Summary Calendar

___________________

In The Matter Of: TEXAS HYDROGEN ENERGY CORPORATION, Debtor.

CLARENCE T. V. JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS HYDROGEN ENERGY CORPORATION; HYDROGEN ENERGY

 CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-98-CV-140)

_________________________________________________________________

November 1, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

At issue is the non-award of attorney’s fees for a Texas

declaratory judgment action removed to bankruptcy court, the fees

being claimed under that Texas statute or for an alleged “bad

faith” claim under FED. R. BANKR. P. 9011. 

In April 1990, by promissory note, Clarence Johnson lent money

to Texas Hydrogen Energy Corporation (THEC) and Hydrogen Energy

Corporation (HEC). An action against the loan, secured by a deed

of trust on an oil and gas lease, became time barred, at the
- 2 -

latest, in October 1994. But, in 1996, the debt was acknowledged

in writing by THEC and HEC without new consideration. In 1997,

Johnson initiated foreclosure, which THEC and HEC contested in the

state declaratory judgment action, challenging the validity of the

debt. 

Before the state court proceeding began, both corporations

filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, removed the case to

bankruptcy court, and challenged the debt acknowledgment as a

fraudulent transfer or invalid preference. During the course of

the bankruptcy proceeding, our court decided In Re Vineyard Bay

Development Co., Inc., 132 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998), establishing,

under Texas law, the validity of the acknowledgment. Id. at 271.

The bankruptcy court held the debt was valid; the

acknowledgment was neither a fraudulent transfer nor invalid

preference; denied the declaratory judgment request; did not grant

Johnson a declaratory judgment; and made the parties responsible

for their own costs and attorney’s fees. On reconsideration, the

bankruptcy court acknowledged that Johnson could seek attorney’s

fees under the Texas statute, but denied them. In a comprehensive

and well-reasoned opinion, the district court affirmed.

For essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s

opinion, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in

denying attorney’s fees.

Johnson also contends that he should be awarded such fees

under FED. R. BANKR. P. 9011, claiming that the state action was

brought in “bad faith”. The bankruptcy court found otherwise.
- 3 -

Again, for essentially the reasons stated in the district court’s

opinion, this factual finding is not clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 791 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 791

      Designating August 1, 2024, as ``Gold Star Children's Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2024

   Mr. Wicker (for himself and Mr. Manchin) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Designating August 1, 2024, as ``Gold Star Children's Day''.

Whereas the recognition of Gold Star Families in the United States dates back to 
        World War I, when the families of fallen members of the Armed Forces 
        displayed a service flag with a gold star in the window of their homes;
Whereas, in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law legislation 
        declaring Gold Star Mother's Day, now known as ``Gold Star Mother's and 
        Family's Day'', a national observance honoring the mothers of fallen 
        members of the Armed Forces annually on the last Sunday of September;
Whereas, since 2010, the Senate has honored Gold Star Spouses by resolution 
        annually on April 5, recognizing the unique sacrifices made by spouses 
        of fallen members of the Armed Forces;
Whereas many thousands of children of military families have lost parents who 
        served in the Armed Forces and also deserve national recognition for the 
        burden and legacy they carry; and
Whereas no date has existed to specifically recognize the children of fallen 
        members of the Armed Forces as part of a national debt of gratitude that 
        the people of the United States owe to the members of the Armed Forces 
        who sacrificed all in protecting the freedom of the United States and 
        the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates August 1, 2024, as ``Gold Star Children's 
        Day'';
            (2) honors the sacrifices and hardships of the children of 
        fallen members of the Armed Forces; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Gold Star Children's Day in support of children of the fallen 
        members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-25-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          40,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,500
<INVENTORY>                                     73,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,100
<PP&E>                                         688,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 393,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 554,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,200
<BONDS>                                        409,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   554,300
<SALES>                                        691,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               691,300
<CGS>                                          540,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  659,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Freud PROPHETE and Kiwana Prophete, Appellants, v. Pat FRANK, as Clerk of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3810

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

Affirmed.
# C_2018455EN.01001001.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer

(Case C-149/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Compensation in the event of file-sharing in breach of copyright - Internet connection accessible by members of the owner’s family - Exemption from liability of the owner without the need to specify the nature of the use of the connection by the family member - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7))

(2018/C 455/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Michael Strotzer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof, and Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, as interpreted by the relevant national courts, the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing cannot be held liable to pay damages if he can name at least one family member who might have had access to that connection, without providing further details as to when and how the internet was used by that family member.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Millennium Quest, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Dimitri Cocorinis and Terry Cononelos, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.



Date:  May 16, 2006                /s/ Dimitri Cocorinis
                                   __________________________________________
                                   Dimitri Cocorinis, Chief Executive Officer


Date:  May 16, 2006                /s/ Terry Cononelos
                                   __________________________________________
                                   Terry Cononelos, Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:03-cv-00113-J Document 17 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56
STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth D. REED, Sr.

NO. 2019-KH-0115

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin TUCKSON

No. 2018-KH-0797

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant 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 second or 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 *886mandatory. Applicant'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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Tony SMITH v. Kandie Mechelle SMITH

2160104

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y Document 33 Filed 01/26/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 179
Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y Document 33 Filed 01/26/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 180
Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y Document 33 Filed 01/26/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 181
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Calamos Asset Management, 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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
functions):
    /s/ Cristina WasiakCristina WasiakChief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2853

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Arthur A. Blumeyer, III; *

*

Defendant, *

* Appeal from the United States

Hope P. Blumeyer; Arthur A. Blumeyer, * District Court for the Eastern

IV; Carter C. Blumeyer; Brian A. * District of Missouri.

Blumeyer; Peggy P. Blumeyer; Hope P. *

Blumeyer, guardian and custodian of a * [UNPUBLISHED]

minor, Hope P. Blumeyer; *

*

Defendants-Appellants, *

*

David D. Yeagley; Bel-Aire Insurance *

Company; Walter A. Rodgers, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

 Submitted: August 6, 1999

Filed: August 13, 1999 

___________

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________
-2-

PER CURIAM.

Hope P. Blumeyer, Arthur A. Blumeyer IV, Carter C. Blumeyer, and Brian A.

Blumeyer (collectively, the Blumeyers) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their

petitions brought under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) (1994), in which the Blumeyers asserted

legal interests in certain personal property ordered forfeited to the United States.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we reject the Blumeyers’

arguments and affirm for the reasons set out in the district court’s thorough

memorandum and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
STATE of Louisiana v. Roy R. DIXON

NO. 2018-KH-1909

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Reconsideration granted. Writ denied.
Steven BEEBE, DOC #R79546, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1455

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 850 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 850

     Designating October 2024 as ``National Country Music Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2024

  Mrs. Blackburn (for herself and Mr. Kaine) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Designating October 2024 as ``National Country Music Month''.

Whereas country music, a uniquely American sound, echoes from the backroads of 
        the United States to the streets of Nashville, Tennessee;
Whereas Bristol, straddling the Tennessee and Virginia state line, is recognized 
        as the ``birthplace of country music'';
Whereas the Grand Ole Opry, the most famous stage in country music, has been 
        called the ``home of American music'';
Whereas the Ryman Auditorium, the original home of the Grand Ole Opry, has been 
        described as ``the Mother Church of country music'';
Whereas country music reminds every American of the importance of faith, family, 
        freedom, hope, opportunity, and patriotism;
Whereas country music has influenced numerous other genres of music;
Whereas country music is an incredibly diverse genre, appealing to Americans 
        from all walks of life;
Whereas country music has millions of fans all across the United States;
Whereas the country music industry contributes billions of dollars in revenue 
        each year to the economy of the United States;
Whereas the Country Music Association first celebrated ``National Country Music 
        Month'' in 1964; and
Whereas President Nixon issued a presidential proclamation in 1970 to 
        acknowledge October as ``National Country Music Month'': Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates October 2024 as ``National Country Music 
        Month'';
            (2) honors the contributions of country music to the story 
        and history of the United States; and
            (3) encourages the American people to observe ``National 
        Country Music Month'' with appropriate ceremonies and 
        activities.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016454EN.01002802.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/28

---

Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Murka v EUIPO (SCATTER SLOTS)

(Case T-704/16)

(2016/C 454/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Murka Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Santos Rodriguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SCATTER SLOTS’ — Application for registration No 14 590 889

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2016 in Case R 471/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No. 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No. 207/2009.

---
Peppy MARTIN, Appellant, v. Marcelo SARMIENTO, Palm Beach County Sheriff and Tri-County Humane Society, Appellees.

No. 4D18-3098

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kraig Richard CONSTANTINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-50

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Affirmed.
Brandon STEVENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2958

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 111 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line 

deduction for health insurance premiums. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an 

above-the-line deduction for health insurance premiums. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PRE4 MIUMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

7 by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by insert8 ing after section 223 the following new section: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 111 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 224. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PRE2 MIUMS. 

3 ‘‘In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed 

4 as a deduction for the taxable year amounts paid by the 

5 taxpayer for insurance which constitutes medical care (as 

6 defined in section 213(d)) for the taxpayer and the tax7 payer’s spouse and dependents. No amount allowed as a 

8 deduction under the preceding sentence shall be taken into 

9 account in determining any deduction or credit otherwise 

10 allowable to the taxpayer (or any other taxpayer) under 

11 this chapter.’’. 

12 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT INDI13 VIDUAL ITEMIZES OTHER DEDUCTIONS.—Subsection (a) 

14 of section 62 of such Code is amended by inserting before 

15 the last sentence at the end the following new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(22) DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE

17 PREMIUMS.—The deduction allowed by section 

18 224.’’. 

19 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

21 is amended by redesignating the item relating to section 

22 224 as an item relating to section 225 and by inserting 

23 after the item relating to section 223 the following new 

24 item: 

‘‘Sec. 224. Deduction for health insurance premiums.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 111 IH

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB