alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50129

Summary Calendar 

TERRENCE M. BROWN, and on behalf of All Federal Inmates Similarly 

Situated, 

Petitioner - Appellant 

v. 

CHERON NASH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute Bastrop; 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondents - Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:15-CV-689

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Proceeding pro se on appeal, Terrence M. Brown, federal prisoner 

# 08524-031, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition on behalf of himself and 

similarly-situated federal prisoners challenging the method adopted by the 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for calculating good-time credit under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3624(b). Brown does not claim he is eligible for immediate release. 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

March 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50129 Document: 00513896290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2017
No. 16-50129

2 

Where the prisoner does not make that claim, we lack subject-matter 

jurisdiction over the appeal of § 2241 petitions challenging the BOP’s 

calculation of good-time credit under § 3624(b). Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 

310, 311–12 (5th Cir. 2005). In Sample, our court ruled the petition was not 

ripe because the prisoner had not established he would sustain immediate 

injury that could be redressed by the relief requested. Id. at 312.

Brown requests the same relief as the petitioner in Sample. Whether 

Brown’s projected release date is computed by the BOP’s interpretation or his 

own, he is not yet entitled to release. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample, 

Brown’s petition is not ripe for review and the instant appeal is dismissed for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See id. 

 DISMISSED. 

 Case: 16-50129 Document: 00513896290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2017
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RONALD R. COKER, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0005-M

v. §

§

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

___________________________________ §

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing the objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and

Conclusions to which objections have been made, I am of the opinion that the Findings and

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct in all but one respect. The Court concludes that the

Plaintiff’s claim that University of Texas Medical Branch (“UTMB”) deprived him of the use of a

handicapped accessible shower chair does not relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) because that

claim was not stated in his original Complaint. Rather, Plaintiff stated that the chair in the shower

he used was filthy and unsanitary. The failure to provide a handicapped accessible shower chair

under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act is a wholly different claim than that of unsanitary

conditions. Because the ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims of failure to provide a handicapped

accessible shower chair are new and different, they do not relate back to the date of filing of the

original Complaint and are barred by limitations.
2

For the reason stated herein and for the other reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant UTMB’s motion

to dismiss (doc #182). The Court hereby dismisses Plaintiff’s claims asserted against UTMB under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 on grounds of sovereign immunity, and dismisses his claims that UTMB failed to

provide a handicapped accessible vehicle and a handicapped accessible shower chair in violation

of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as untimely. The Court otherwise denies the motion to dismiss.

SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2008.

_________________________________

BARBARA M.G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 1 Filed 03/21/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 1 Filed 03/21/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 1 Filed 03/21/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3
# C_2019383EN.01001401.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

(Case C-688/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Patents - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 9(7) - Placing on the market of products infringing a patent right - Provisional measures - Patent subsequently declared invalid - Consequences - Right to appropriate compensation for losses caused by the provisional measures)

(2019/C 383/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayer Pharma AG

Defendants: Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt., Exeltis Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, in particular, the concept of ‘appropriate compensation’ referred to in that provision, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that a party shall not be compensated for losses which he has suffered due to his not having acted as may generally be expected in order to avoid or mitigate his loss and which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, results in the court not making an order for provisional measures against the applicant obliging him to provide compensation for losses caused by those measures even though the patent on the basis of which those had been requested and granted has subsequently been found to be invalid, to the extent that that legislation permits the court to take due account of all the objective circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties, in order, inter alia, to determine that the applicant has not abused those measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
Exhibit 31.1

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Gary Musil, certify that:
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Logicom 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.             I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.             I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 2, 2005

 

/s/ Gary Musil

Gary Musil, President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7484** 

LEVON SPAULDING, a/k/a John Scott , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:14

- hc

- 02174

- BO )

Submitted : January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Levon Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Levon Spaulding seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. W hen the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a d ebatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spaulding has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.3 Additionally, we construe Spaulding ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003 ). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the o ffense. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2012)
. Spaudling ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
##### 



COMSTOCK HOMEBUILDING COMPANIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
  EXHIBIT 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(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 15, 2006
    /s/ Christopher ClementeChristopher Clemente 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Date: May 15, 2006
    /s/ Bruce LabovitzBruce Labovitz 
Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:04-cv-02295-P Document 49 Filed 07/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 362
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02295-P Document 49 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 363
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02295-P Document 49 Filed 07/07/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 364
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02295-P Document 49 Filed 07/07/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 365
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02295-P Document 49 Filed 07/07/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 366
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Robert W. Wright, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of PRB Gas Transportation, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:

 

a.     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b.     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.     Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: March 22, 2006                  |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
| /s/ Robert W. Wright                  |   |
|                                  |
| Robert W. Wright                      |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |
| (Principal Executive  Officer)        |

 

1

----
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3344

_____________________________
E UGENE S IMON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duv al County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

. February 6, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R OWE , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_ ____________________________

Eugene Simon, pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 JMG Exploration, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Justin Yorke, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, 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.   Date: August 2, 2011  /s/ Justin YorkeName:Justin YorkeTitle:Chief Executive and Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JMG Exploration, Inc.  and will be retained by JMG Exploration, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   *This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
FCCI COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PULTE HOME CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2103

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 18, 2019

Robert M. Darroch, Brett A. Smith and Cathi M. Carson-Freymann of Goodman McGuffey LLP, Sarasota, for Appellant.

Mark A. Boyle and Amanda K. Anderson of Boyle & Leonard, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*279The Court has determined that the order on appeal is not a final, appealable order as it fails to complete the judicial labor in the case. Accordingly, Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Appellee's motion for attorney's fees based on section 627.428, Florida Statutes, is provisionally granted. In the event Appellee prevails before the trial court, the trial court shall determine Appellee's entitlement to fees for this appeal pursuant to section 627.428. If the trial court finds Appellee is entitled to fees, the trial court shall assess fees against Appellant pursuant to section 627.428.

In light of the dismissal, all other pending motions are denied as moot.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 12.1


I, Chet Idziszek, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Madison Minerals Inc. (the “Company”); 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officers 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 Company 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 Company, 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’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 d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’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 are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarise 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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 28, 2013 Signed “Chet Idziszek”Chet Idziszek, President


---