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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 97-31271 Summary Calendar

C.H. FAULKENBERRY, JR., Plaintiff,

versus JOHN ELKINS ET AL., Defendants.

==================================================== DAVID L. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus INTERNATIONAL BIOCHEMICALS GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 95-CV-2041 and 85-CV-146

- - - - - - - - - - November 19, 1998 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David L. Smith, assignee of C.H. Faulkenberry’s interest in a 1986 consent judgment entered in the Middle District ofNo. 97-31271 -2- Louisiana against John Elkins, Benefit Systems, Inc., and Microbe

Masters, Inc. (“Microbe”), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition to revive the consent judgment against International Biochemicals Group, Inc. (“IBG”), Microbe’s successor in interest. Smith argues that the district court erred in determining that Microbe had been inadvertently included in the consent judgment and that, even if Microbe had not been served in the original action, Microbe voluntarily acquiesced in the consent judgment, precluding IBG from asserting that the consent judgment is null. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing the petition to revive the consent judgment is affirmed. Smith’s motion to incorporate the record and briefs filed in his previous appeal is denied. AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Andrew W. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1963

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
| (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 theCompany. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: February 11,      2011 | By: /s/ Leo Shi      Young                 |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                       |
|                         | Leo Shi    Young                           |
|                         | President and Chief Executive      Officer |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC WILLIAM WASSEL

,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 24 65 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 4 3 DB 201 8

Attorney Registration No. 77632

(L uzerne County)

O RDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of May, 2018, upon consideration of the

Recommendation of the Three

- Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint

Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted , and Eric William Wassel is

suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of two years

. The suspension is stayed in its entirety, and he is placed on probation for a period of

two years, subject to the following conditions:

1. Respondent shall not engage in conduct that is in violation of any federal, state

or local stat ute or ordinance that provides for a possible sentence of

imprisonment;

2. Respondent shall report to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel if he is charged

with violations of any federal, state or local statute or ordinance that provides for

a possible sentence of imprisonment;

3. Respondent shall not engage in conduct that is a violation of the Pennsylvania

Rules of Professional Conduct or the Pennsylvania Rules of DisciplinaryEnforcement; more specifically, Respondent has escrowed the diverted funds

r egardless of his view or the merits of the dispute;

4. Respondent shall litigate the fee dispute with F ellerman & Ciarimboli Law Firm

in good faith and comply with the terms of any settlement or final judgment; and

5. Respondent shall not engage in conduct that is in violation of the

corresponding Rules of Professional Conduct in any other state where he obtains

or maintains a law license.

Further, Respondent shall pay the costs incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the

investigation and prosecution of thi s matter. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
Rodney STEWART, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Darla Jane STEWART, Former Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3348

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 23, 2019

E. Jane Brehany of E. Jane Brehany, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

Jill W. Warren of the Law Office of Jill W. Warren, PLLC, Pensacola, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*846This is the second time this matter is before us. The first resulted in our opinion in *Stewart v. Stewart* , 237 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), in which we reversed and remanded portions of the lower tribunal's amended final judgment of dissolution to recalculate the value of certain assets. The lower court subsequently revisited the valuations discussed in our prior opinion and issued a remand order. We now review those portions of the lower court's remand order concerning the court's valuation of the personal property of the marriage and what was referred to as the marital home located at Arnie's Way.

Without further comment, we affirm the trial court's valuation of the personal property based on Former Husband's own amended financial affidavit. As to the Arnie's Way property, Former Husband argues that the trial court erred by listing it as a marital asset. Former Wife concedes the point. Therefore, we reverse that portion of the remand order and distribution table and remand to the trial court to correct the error and proceed accordingly.

REVERSED and REMANDED .

Lewis, Roberts, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Eric FARANDA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph P. CAMERA, as Guardian Guardianship of Raffaela M. Corbo, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2307

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Tony Leon HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-1178

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
4oz.

EVITAR

MEJORES

BUENAS

MEDIDOR DE ELECCIÓN DE PESCADO

BAJO

ALTO

NIVEL DE

MERCURIO

EMBARAZO Y LACTANCIA

EL CONSUMO DE 

PESCADO

¿Hay otros beneficios de comer pescado?

¿Qué tipo de pescado debo comer?

El pescado contiene 

nutrientes clave que 

ayudan al desarrollo 

del cerebro del niño.

• Almeja

• Arenque

• Atún, enlatado 

claro (incluye el 

bonito)

• Bacalao

• Bagre o pez gato

• Boquerón o 

anchoa

• Caballa

• Caballa del 

Pacífico

• Calamar

• Camarón

• Cangrejo

• Cangrejo de río

• Corvina

• Eglefino

• Eperlano

• Gado o abadejo

• Langosta 

americana o 

espinosa

• Lenguado

• Lisa o pargo

• Lucio

• Merlán o 

pescadilla

• Merluza

• Ostra

• Palometa

• Perca, de agua 

dulce y de mar

• Pescado blanco

• Platija o lenguado

• Raya

• Róbalo

• Sábalo

• Salmón

• Sardina

• Solla 

• Tilapia

• Trucha, de agua 

dulce

• Vieira

Las mejores opciones*

Elija una variedad de pescados de la lista 

“Las mejores opciones”, que son más 

bajos en mercurio.

*La lista de las “Mejores opciones” de pescado que se muestra 

arriba es una de las tres categorías de pescado de este 

asesoramiento. La tabla completa describe las “Mejores opciones”, 

las “Buenas opciones” y las “Opciones a evitar”.

Para obtener más información sobre cómo elegir opciones saludables y 

seguras en cuanto al pescado, visite www.fda.gov/fishadvice.

¿Por qué es nutritivo el pescado?

Comer pescado durante el embarazo y la lactancia 

proporciona nutrientes clave que favorecen el 

desarrollo del cerebro del niño:

GRASAS 

OMEGA-3

GRASAS 

OMEGA-6 COLINA HIERRO YODO

• La colina también contribuye al desarrollo 

de la médula espinal del bebé.

• El hierro y el zinc fortalecen el sistema 

inmunitario de los niños.

• El pescado es una fuente de otros 

nutrientes como proteínas, vitamina B12, 

vitamina D, yodo y selenio también.

El comer pescado tiene muchos beneficios 

potenciales. Por ejemplo, hay pruebas sólidas 

de que comer pescado, como parte de un 

patrón de alimentación saludable, puede tener 

beneficios para la salud del corazón.

¿Cuánto pescado debo comer?

Coma de 8 a 12 onzas de pescado 

por semana de la lista de las 

“Mejores opciones”.

Una porción es 

4 onzas

(más o menos el tamaño 

de la palma de la mano 

de un adulto).
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 10477 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Ty Taylor Thomas,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:21

- CR

- 58

- 5

**______________________________** Before **King, Higginson,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Ty Taylor Thomas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Thomas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 21, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10477 Document: 00516586392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2022No. 22

- 10477

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-10477 Document: 00516586392 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE GROUND RULES

FOR TESTIMONY BY

ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI

Since both sides intend to ask the jury to draw adverse inferences based on non-party

Anthony Levandowski’s expected assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege at trial (see Dkt.

Nos. 829-4, 835), the Court is inclined to adopt the following ground rules concerning

Levandowski’s testimony at trial, subject to the recommendations of counsel:

1. Neither side shall make any reference to Levandowski testifying at trial (or not)

in its opening statement.

2. Plaintiff Waymo LLC shall call Levandowski, if at all, very close to the end of

its case-in-chief so that the Court will be in a position to assess whether or not the trial record

before the jury includes corroborating evidence to support the adverse inferences sought.

3. Defendants may opt to either ask their questions based on the corroborating

evidence already included in the trial record before the jury at the end of Waymo’s case-inchief, or postpone their examination of Levandowski and require him to return at the end of

defendants’ case-in-chief for further questioning. If defendants choose the latter option, then

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1535 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Waymo will be permitted to ask further questions based on any additional corroborating

evidence introduced during defendants’ case-in-chief.

4. As the undersigned judge explained during a hearing on July 26 (see Dkt. No.

1050 at 99:1–13), the jury will be instructed, if the Fifth Amendment is invoked, that it may, but

is not required to, draw inferences adverse to Levandowski based on his assertion of his Fifth

Amendment privilege. If any such adverse inference is drawn against Levandowski, then it will

remain up to the jury to decide, as a separate question and based on all the other evidence in the

case, whether the fact inferred is also adverse to one or more parties herein.

Any objections to these ground rules must be made in writing at least 24 hours before

the final pretrial conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1535 Filed 09/13/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of the President 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 annual report of Liberty Silver Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Bill Tafuri, the Principal Executive 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, that:  (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.  /s/ Bill TafuriPrincipal Executive Officer Date: October 13, 2010
U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:05-cv-01950-MHP Document 33 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2
 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Textron Financial CorporationDate: October 30, 2009
    
    /s/ Thomas J. CullenThomas J. CullenExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6072

OZZIE B. HILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; NEWBERRY COUNTY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-96-1523-3-18BC)

Submitted: April 21, 1998 Decided: May 4, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ozzie B. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Hill v. South Carolina, No. CA-96-1523-3-18BC (D.S.C.

Dec. 5, 1996). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 789 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 789

       Designating October 12, 2022, as ``National Loggers Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2022

 Mr. Durbin for (Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Risch, Mr. 
Cassidy, Mr. King, and Mr. Daines)) submitted the following resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating October 12, 2022, as ``National Loggers Day''.

Whereas the logging industry has served as an economic driver and cultural 
        tradition in the United States for centuries;
Whereas the logging industry creates rural jobs and provides revenue for local 
        and State governments and National Forests;
Whereas loggers provide renewable material for products used by people in the 
        United States every day;
Whereas loggers are the first link in the $300,000,000,000 domestic forest 
        products supply chain;
Whereas loggers are the means by which healthy forest management plans are 
        accomplished;
Whereas logging provides for healthy forests that maintain vital animal 
        habitats;
Whereas logging provides for healthy forests which--

    (1) protect watersheds;

    (2) sequester carbon;

    (3) provide public recreational opportunities; and

    (4) reduce loss of life and property from wildfires; and

Whereas logging provides for healthy forests through regeneration, including 
        planting 2,500,000,000 trees annually: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates October 12, 2022, as ``National Loggers 
        Day''; and
            (2) encourages the President to officially designate 
        October 12th as ``National Loggers Day''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal American Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert A. Waegelein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act OF 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

Date: December 23, 2003

                                                         /s/ Robert A. Waegelein
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Robert A. Waegelein
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

                                       45
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**

**OFFICER OF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND PARTNERS, LP**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for three months ended September 30, 2005 andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Randy Moeder, Chief Executive Officer and President of Hiland Partners GP,LLC, the general partner of Hiland Partners, LP (the “Company”), herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.             The information contained in the report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | November 14, 2005 | /s/ Randy Moeder                       |
|-------------|-------------------|----------------------------------------|
|        |              | Randy Moeder                           |
|        |              | Chief Executive Officer  and President |

 

 

1

----
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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN FERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

A. P. KANE, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-4566 SI (pr)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. He does not need a certificate of appealability to

appeal because his habeas petition challenged the parole authority's administrative decision to

deny parole. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005).

Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED for failure to

provide the information required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1). (Docket #

6.) This denial is without prejudice to him filing a request in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

The clerk shall process the appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01958-SI Document 16 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 1
Jean Marc JOSEPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1096

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
R.E., Individually, on Behalf of J.E., et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

No. 12-1210.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.