alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO., et al. v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, et al.

Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, et al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al.

Crosstex Energy Services, L.P., et al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al.

No. 2019-CC-0978 No. 2019-CC-0979 No. 2019-CC-0980

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 18, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ASSUMPTION**

PER CURIAM

Granted in part. Considering our order in *Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Co., LLC* , 2018-1128 (La. 10/29/18), 255 So. 3d 587, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated insofar as it finds the district court is divested of jurisdiction to consider Texas Brine's fraud-based claims in the *Crosstex* matter. We hereby grant a limited remand of the *Crosstex* appeal in order to permit the district court to conduct the trial, as scheduled, of Texas Brine's fraud-based claims in the *Crosstex* matter only. In all other respects, the writs are denied.

Justices Weimer, Guidry, and Clark, would deny all applications.

Justice Hughes would grant all applications.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1951

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. PATRICK LOCKHART , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00808

- MSN

- IDD )

Submitted : March 31, 2023 Decided: April 4, 2023

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Patrick Lockhart, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1951 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Patrick Lockhart appeals the district court’s orders (a) remanding to state court Lockhart’s criminal prosecution on two misdemeanor charges, which Lockhart attempted to remove to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1); and (b) denying Lockhart’s motion for reconsideration of the remand ruling. We have reviewed the record and discern no error in the court’s rulings. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Virginia v. Lockhart , No. 1:22

- cv - 00808

- MSN

- IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2022 & Sept. 1, 2022). We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1951 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Michael A. HINDS, DOC #C07943, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1071

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Important! E-file this form in ECF using the appropriate event among these choices: “Stipulation & Proposed 

Order Selecting Mediation” or “Stipulation & Proposed Order Selecting ENE” or “Stipulation & Proposed 

Order Selecting Private ADR.” 

Form ADR-Stip rev. 1-2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 Plaintiff(s) 

v.

 Defendant(s) 

CASE No C 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS 

Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following 

stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5. The parties agree to participate in the 

following ADR process: 

 Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)

 Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)

 Private ADR (specify process and provider)

The parties agree to hold the ADR session by: 

 the presumptive deadline (90 days from the date of the order referring the case to ADR, 

unless otherwise ordered. )

 other requested deadline: 

 Date:

Date:

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorney for Defendant

 IT IS SO ORDERED 

 IT IS SO ORDERED WITH MODIFICATIONS: 

Date:

U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Note: Magistrate judges do not conduct 

mediations under ADR L.R. 6. To request an 

early settlement conference with a Magistrate 

Judge, you must file a Notice of Need for 

ADR Phone Conference. Do not use this 

form. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR 

L.R. 3-5.

MAHLON D., et al. 16-cv-07230-HSG

CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

■

■

3/29/2017 /s/ David M. Lilienstein, Esq.

3/29/2017 /s/ Sean P. Nalty, Esq.

Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 20 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 1

X

3/30/2017

Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 21 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 1
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





Yisroel
Guttfreund, the President and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and Director of
Watchtower, Inc., certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations
of the Company.





(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
Registrant.








Date:
      March 31, 2009
              
              WATCHTOWER,
      INC.By:
              /s/
      Yisroel
      GuttfreundName:
              Yisroel
      GuttfreundTitle:
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and Director
                (Principal
      Executive, Financial and Accounting
Officer)








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Consent, Agreement and Affirmation of Guaranty



 Exhibit 10.2 
 CONSENT, AGREEMENT AND AFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY 
 Each of the undersigned Guarantors hereby consents to the terms of the foregoing Amendment and agrees that the terms of the Amendment shall not affect in any way its obligations and liabilities under any Loan Document
(as such Loan Documents are amended or otherwise expressly modified by the Amendment), all of which obligations and liabilities shall remain in full force and effect and each of which is hereby reaffirmed (as amended or otherwise expressly modified
by the Amendment). The Guarantors hereby confirm that the security interests and Liens granted pursuant to the Loan Documents continue to secure the Obligations (including the Local Credit Facility Obligations) and that such security interests and
Liens remain in full force and effect. 
  

	
	ALLTRISTA PLASTICS LLC
	 AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD, INC.
 AUSTRALIAN COLEMAN,
INC.
 BICYCLE HOLDING, INC.
 BRK BRANDS, INC.
 CC OUTLET, INC.
 COLEMAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC
 COLEMAN WORLDWIDE CORPORATION
 EARTH PRODUCTS INC.
 FIRST ALERT, INC.
 HEARTHMARK, LLC
 HOLMES MOTOR CORPORATION
 JARDEN ACQUISITION I, LLC
 JARDEN ZINC PRODUCTS, LLC
 JT SPORTS LLC
 K2 INC.
 K-2 CORPORATION
 K2 MERCHANDISING, INC.
 K2 PROPERTIES, INC.
 KANSAS ACQUISITION CORP.
 L.A. SERVICES, INC.
 LASER ACQUISITION CORP.
 LEHIGH CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC
 LOEW-CORNELL, LLC
 MARKER VOLKL USA, INC.
 MARMOT MOUNTAIN, LLC
 MIKEN SPORTS, LLC
 NIPPON COLEMAN, INC.
 OUTDOOR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
 PENN FISHING TACKLE MFG. CO.
 PURE FISHING, INC.
 QUOIN, LLC
 RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS COMPANY, INC.
 SEA STRIKER, INC.
 SHAKESPEARE COMPANY, LLC
 SHAKESPEARE CONDUCTIVE FIBERS, LLC
 SI II, INC.
 SITCA CORPORATION
 SUNBEAM AMERICAS HOLDINGS, LLC











			
	SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.
	 THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC.
 THE UNITED STATES PLAYING CARD COMPANY
 USPC HOLDING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ John E. Capps

	Name:	 	John E. Capps
	Title:	 	Vice President


  

 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT
NO. 10 CONSENT]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOBIAS VONDREA ARTIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00296-H-2; 5:08-cv-00280-H)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jobias Vondrea Artis, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson 

Kocher, Steve R. Matheny, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., , Assistant

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jobias Vondrea Artis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Artis has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 23.2**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements on Form S-3, as amended, of Discover Bank, Discover Card Master Trust I, and Discover Card Execution Note Trust (Registration Numbers 333-141703, 333-141703-01, 333-141703-02, 333-167413, 333-167413-01, and333-167413-02) of our attestation report dated February 3, 2012, with respect to U.S. Bank National Association’s compliance with specified servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB for its Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform as of November 30, 2011, and for the period from December 1, 2010 through November 30, 2011, included in the Annual Reports (Form 10-K) ofDiscover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card Execution Note Trust for the year ended November 30, 2011, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

February 17, 2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terry Alan NISEWARNER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6232.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 19, 2004.

Terry Alan Nisewarner, Appellant pro se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Terry Allen Nisewarner appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir .2001).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Nisewarner has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.1





Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of The Wilber Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:





(a)
the Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Alfred S. WhittetAlfred S. WhittetPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  November 9, 2010





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 The Wilber Corporation and will be retained by The Wilber Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      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

         I, Lukas Braunschweiler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Dionex Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarter Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Dionex Corporation.

                                            By:   /s/ Lukas Braunschweiler
                                                  ------------------------------

                                            Name: Lukas Braunschweiler

Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

         I, Craig A. McCollam, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Dionex Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarter Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Dionex Corporation.

                                            By:   /s/ Craig A. McCollam
                                                  ------------------------------

                                            Name: Craig A. McCollam

Title: Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
| 1. | Beijing      Super TV Co., Ltd. is willing to transfer its capital contribution of RMB      50 million in Beijing Novel-Super Media Investment Co., Ltd. to Beijing      Novel-Super Digital TV Technology Co., Ltd. at the cost price of RMB 50      million; |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Beijing      Novel-Super Digital TV Technology Co., Ltd. is willing to accept the      capital contribution of RMB 50 million of Beijing Super TV Co., Ltd. in      Beijing Novel-Super Media Investment Co., Ltd. at the cost price of RMB 50      million; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | The      transfer shall be made on October 5, 2008, upon then, the Transferer shall      not be entitled to the rights of shareholder and be obliged as a      shareholder in respect of the transferred contribution, and the Transferee      shall within its contribution be entitled to such rights and be obliged as      a shareholder. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Transferer:      (Official Seal) | Transferee:      (Official Seal)    |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                             |                                |
| Beijing      Super TV Co., Ltd.  | Beijing      Novel-Super Digital TV |

----
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                      (PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



     The  undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (I) the Form 10-Q
filed  by  First Citizens Bancorporation of South Carolina, Inc. (the "Company")
for  the  quarter  ended  June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (II) the
information  contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the  financial  condition at June 30, 2003, June 30, 2002 and December 31, 2002,
and  the  results  of  operations of the Company for the six months and quarters
ended  June  30,  2003  and  June  30,  2002.



Date:  August 13, 2003                         /s/  Jim B. Apple
                                               -----------------
                                               Jim B. Apple
                                               Chief Executive Officer



Date:  August 13, 2003                         /s/  Craig L. Nix
                                               -----------------
                                               Craig L. Nix
                                               Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

TXU US Holdings Company 

1601 Bryan Street 

Dallas, TX 75201 

 

We have made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial information of TXU US HoldingsCompany and subsidiaries (US Holdings) for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated August 12, 2005; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in USHoldings’ Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-69554, 333-53296, 333-53296-01, 333-53296-02 and 333-53296-03 on Form S-3. 

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under theSecurities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

August 12, 2005
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 60485 Summary Calendar

**____________ Dean C. Boyd,**  Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus **Vickie Thomas; N.P. Miranda Shegog; P.A. Shauna Nguyen; Shirley Harris; M.D. James Glisson; Sergeant**  **Williams; Officer Sanders; Willie Knighten,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:22

- CV

- 113

**______________________________** Before **Dennis, Elrod,**  and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Dean C. Boyd, a Mississippi prisoner, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 6, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60485 Document: 00516811515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2023No. 22

- 60485

2 We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely “notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Boyd filed an “objection” to the final judgment which challenged the correctness of that judgment. See **Fed. R. Civ. P.**  59(e). Such a pleading is commonly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion if , as here, it was f iled within the applicable 28

- day time limit. See Mangieri v. Clifton , 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying the former 10

- day time limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion); United States v. Gallardo , 915 F.2d 149, 150 n.2 (5th Cir. 1990) (liberally construing objections

as a m otion for reconsideration in the context of the former 10

- day time limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion)

. Under Feder al Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, the filing of certain postjudgment motions, including a timely Rule 59(e) motion, renders a notice of appeal ineffective until an order is entered disposing of the motion. **Fed. R. App. P**

. 4(a)(4) (A)(iv), (B)(i ) ; see also Simmons v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. of Tex

. , 310 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2002)

. Because the district court has not ruled on Boyd’s constructive Rule 59(e) motion, his notice of appeal is not yet effective, and this appeal is premature. See **Fed. R. App. P.**  4(a)(4)(B)(i); Burt v. Ware , 14 F.3d 256, 260

- 61 (5th Cir. 1994)

. Accordingly, this case is **REMANDED** for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on the Rule 59(e) motion. We hold th e appeal in abeyance until the notice of appeal becomes effective, and we retain jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand. T he clerk of this court is instructed to process the appeal immediately upon the return of the case from the district court. **LIMITED REMAND; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE.** Case: 22-60485 Document: 00516811515 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2023