alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-21016 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERALD PATRICK HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CR-231-2

- - - - - - - - - - September 23, 1998 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gerald Harris appeals the refusal of the district court to consider new issues of fact arising for the first time on remand for resentencing. He argues that the district court should have considered these new issues and that the failure to do so should result in a reversal and vacation of his sentence. There is no de novo resentencing following remand in all cases in which resentencing has been ordered. United States v. Marmolejo , 139 F.3d 528, 531 (5th Cir.), petition for cert.No. 97-21016 -2- filed, (July 20, 1998)(No. 98-5372). The district court did not err in holding that the only issues to be considered on resentencing were those directed to it by this court. The other errors argued by the appellant were not properly before the sentencing court because they did not fall within the limits of the remand order. Appellant’s argument concerning a change in the law regarding downward departures by sentencing courts is unavailing. United States v. Koon , 518 U.S. 81 (1996). Koon authorizes a sentencing court to make a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines only if the facts are appropriate, and the opinion sets out considerations for different circumstances. Id. at 92- 96. The district court acknowledged its ability to consider an imperfect duress defense but held that it was improper to do so. As result, this decision cannot be reviewed by this court. See United States v. Brace , 145 F.3d 247, 263 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc); United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 477-78 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Andrew M. GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1585

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# C_2017121EN.01001901.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/19

---

Action brought on 3 March 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-110/17)

(2017/C 121/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and N. Gossement, Agents, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented buildings or buildings rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes, or to legal persons who make such buildings available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as buildings located abroad are concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented buildings or buildings rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes, or to legal persons who make such buildings available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as buildings located abroad are concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and

| — | order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the EEA.

While noting the attempts made by Belgium to bring its failure to fulfil obligations to an end, the Commission takes the view that the existence of the failure to fulfil obligations on 26 March 2012, the date when the period of two months laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, has been proven.

---
Otario GARRETTE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D19-1493

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 25, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001040573
<NAME> COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              35
<SECURITIES>                                        71
<RECEIVABLES>                                      110
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (19)
<INVENTORY>                                         35
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   245
<PP&E>                                           3,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,181)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              531
<BONDS>                                          3,462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,449
<SALES>                                          2,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   (2,167)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (276)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (150)<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                        36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (97)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (97)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN> 
<F1> Loss before income tax benefit and other items excludes the effect of 
minority interests, net of tax, of $17.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 45 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.45
                                    Agreed to September 30, 2022        

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of H.R. 6833, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall amend the title so as to read: ``Making 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2023, and for other 
purposes.''.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
Marlene CONCEPCION, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Robert CONCEPCION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0944

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 08, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case No.: 16-cv-07391-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SETTLEMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BONESO BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALSH/DEMARIA JOINT VENTURE V, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07391-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 62

The parties, having filed a Notice of Settlement on May 29, 2018 (See Docket Item No. 

62), are ordered to appear before the Honorable Edward J. Davila on July 19, 2018 at 10:00 AM 

in Courtroom No. 4, 5th Floor, United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, 

California, 95113, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). On or before July 9, 2018, the parties shall file a joint statement in 

response to the Order to Show Cause setting forth the status of settlement efforts as well as the 

amount of additional time necessary to finalize and file a dismissal. 

The Order to Show Cause shall be automatically vacated and the parties relieved of the 

obligation to file a joint statement if a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a) is filed on or before July 9, 2018.

All other pretrial deadlines and hearing dates are VACATED and any pending motions are 

TERMINATED.

Failure to comply with any part of this Order will be deemed sufficient grounds to dismiss 

the action. 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/29/2018 ____________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge
Steven VILLALONA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-480

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 23, 2019]

Steven Justin Villalona, Oakdale, Louisiana, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Trailer Bridge, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 30, 2010 |  | /s/ Mark A. Tanner     
|                     |  | Mark A. Tanner         
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:05-cv-01644-B Document 1 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
Case 3:05-cv-01644-B Document 1 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
Case 3:05-cv-01644-B Document 1 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
Case 3:05-cv-01644-B Document 1 Filed 08/16/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
Case 3:05-cv-01644-B Document 1 Filed 08/16/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
Case 3:05-cv-01644-B Document 1 Filed 08/16/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
Case 3:05-cv-01644-B Document 1 Filed 08/16/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LYNK LABS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

Appellee

______________________

2023-1934

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

01300.

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

LYNK LABS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

Appellee

______________________

2023-1897

______________________

Case: 23-1897 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2023
2 LYNK LABS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

01299.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Lynk Labs, Inc.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 2023-1897 pursuant 

to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2023-1897 is 

dismissed. The caption for the remaining appeal is reflected above.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 

2023-1897.

(3) Lynk Labs’s opening brief in appeal No. 2023-1934 

is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order.

July 11, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (AS TO NO. 2023-1897 ONLY): 

July 11, 2023

Case: 23-1897 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 07/11/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2110

MICHAEL WAYNE HILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL WAYNE REVELLS,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:20-cv-00233-FL)

Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Hill, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wayne Hill appeals the district court’s order denying his postjudgment 

motion for order of regress. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. Revells, No. 

4:20-cv-00233-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 China Housing & Land Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Date: May 14, 2008                        By:  /s/ LU PINGJI
                                               -------------
                                               Lu Pingji
                                               (Chief Executive Officer)

<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.15


 


THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE


1997
EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN OF


DUANE
READE INC.


 


 


Duane Reade Inc. (the “Company”), a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, by resolution of
its Board of Directors (the “Board”), adopted the 1997 Equity Participation
Plan of Duane Reade Inc. (the “Plan”), effective as of June 18, 1997. Section
10.2 of the Plan allows the Board to amend the Plan in certain respects at any
time or from time to time.


 


In order to amend the Plan in certain respects,
this Third Amendment to the Plan has been adopted by a resolution of the Board
on February 11, 2003, effective as set forth herein.  This amendment to the Plan, together with the Plan and the First
and Second Amendments, constitutes the entire Plan as amended to date.


 


1.                                       AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 2.1(a).  Section 2.1(a) of the
Plan is amended, effective as of the date of approval of a majority of the
Company’s stockholders, to read in its entirety as follows:


 


 “(a)        The shares of
stock subject to Options, awards of Restricted Stock, Performance Awards,
Dividend Equivalents, awards of Deferred Stock, Stock Payments or Stock
Appreciation Rights shall be the Company’s Common Stock, par value $.01 per
share.  The aggregate number of such
shares which may be issued upon exercise of such options, rights or awards
under the Plan shall not exceed 3,971,181. The shares of Common Stock issuable
upon exercise of such Options, rights or awards may be either previously
authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.”


 


 


Dated: 
February 11, 2003


 


	
  DUANE READE INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By

  	
   /s/  Michelle
  D. Bergman

  
	
   

  	
  Michelle D. Bergman

  Vice President, General Counsel

  and Secretary
Damian Leander KELLY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1600

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Craig J. PAYNE v. ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY et al.

1160733

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Linda GIORDANO, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1279

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 6, 2019

Rachel M. Coe of Polaris Legal Group, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Kathleen Angione of Kahane & Associates, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* .

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Conner, JJ., concur.
#### Jose Vicente SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MINSON CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-56054.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 26, 2004.

Jose Vicente Sanchez, Paramount, CA, pro se.

Howard M. Knee, Esq., Jamie Rudman, Esq., Knee & Ross, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

*493Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

José Vicente Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action for failure to prosecute. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint, *Walker v. Sumner,*14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling, because Sanchez failed properly to serve a summons and complaint on the defendant corporation within 120 days, *see*Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(k); Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 415.10 & 415.20, or show good cause for this failure, *see*Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); *Hamilton v. Ended,*981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir.1992) (“inadvertent error or ignorance of governing rules alone will not excuse a litigant’s failure to effect timely service.”).

To the extent that we construe Sanchez’s opening brief to move for appointment of counsel, we deny this motion, because a review of the record indicates that this appeal lacks sufficient merit to warrant the appointment of counsel. *See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego,*662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir.1981).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX PARTE Jasen Scott CARADINE

1161121 (CR-16-0090)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00912-CR

Ben DENN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-5973

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 19, 2009

DISMISSED

On August 11, 2009, appellant filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is GRANTED, and

the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
DESOTO COUNTY, Mississippi v. STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

2018-CT-00027-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: May 10, 2019 Closed: June 27, 2019

Motion Desc: Appellant's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Granted.
S. Con. Res. 45 Agreed to September 30, 2022

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, in the enrollment of H.R. 6833, the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives shall amend the title so as to read: ‘‘Making 

continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Exhibit 23.2



|                                           |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 
|NSAII NETHERLAND SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. |  |  |  | 

CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-7070, 333-62708, 333-73878, 333-112670,
333-105015 and 333-111448); (ii) the Post Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-70268); and (iii) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration
No. 333-127168); each of GlobalSantaFe Corporation (the Company), of our report dated February 25, 2005, relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenues of certain interests of Challenger Minerals, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, as of December 31, 2004, included as Exhibit 99.1 of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2006, and of the data extracted from such report appearing in the Supplemental Oil and Gas Disclosure (unaudited) in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K. We hereby consent to all references to such report and/or this firm in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2006 and in each Registration Statement referenced above. We further consent to our being named as an
expert in those Registration Statements and in each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates.



Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc.By:

/s/ Danny D. SimmonsDanny D. SimmonsExecutive Vice President




Houston, Texas

February 27, 2007