alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 95-4117

___________ Tommy Lee Johnson, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Nelson McAlpine, * * Appeal from the United States Plaintiff, * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Lt. Luensman; C/O Tope; C/O * Sprau; C/O Dunyon; C/O Andrews; * Hilton; Larry Brimeyer, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 12, 1996 Filed: August 28, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. To mmyLee Johnson appeals from the district court’s 28 U.S.C . 1 § 1915(d) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging racia l discri mination and cruel and unusual punishment at the Iowa Men’ s Reformatory. After reviewing the district court file and Johnson’s brief, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm . See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12654]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Information Collection Under OMB Review: Complaints, 38 CFR 
18.542; and Notice to Subrecipients, 38 CFR 18.532

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Veterans Affairs has submitted to OMB the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This 
document lists the following information: (1) The title of the 
information collection, and the Department form number(s), if 
applicable; (2) a description of the need and its use; (3) who will be 
required or asked to respond; (4) an estimate of the total annual 
reporting hours, and recordkeeping burden, if applicable; (5) the 
estimated average burden hours per respondent; (6) the frequency of 
response; and (7) an estimated number of respondents.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting 
documents may be obtained from Ron Taylor, Information Management 
Service (045A4), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 
523-3412.
    Comments and questions about the items on the list should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Joseph Lackey, NEOB, Room 3002, 
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316. Do not send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer on or before June 23, 1995.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Donald L. Neilson,
Director, Information Management Service.

Reinstatement

1. Age Discrimination Complaints, 38 CFR 18.542; and Notice of 
Subrecipients, 38 CFR 18.532.
2. This information collection pertains to the recordkeeping 
requirement that Federally funded recipients process complaints of age 
discrimination in their respective programs and that these recipients 
notify subrecipients of their obligations under the law and VA's 
implementing regulations.
3. Individuals or households--Businesses or other for-profit--Not-for-
profit institutions--State, Local or Tribal Governments.
4. The estimated total annual report hours and recordkeeping burden is 
409 hours. However, the burden placed on the public in this reporting 
and recordkeeping requirement is not unique to the Federal government. 
Therefore, VA will be indicating a burden hour of one for the OMB 
reports management system. The information being requested from the 
public is retained or requested as a matter of practice.
5. 1\1/2\ hours.
6. On occasion.
7. 234 recordkeepers.

[FR Doc. 95-12654 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., petitioner, v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, et al.

No. 13-298.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 6, 2013.

*735Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2014

s1222 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2014

150274

EMILY R. VARRAN, a Minor, by he r Next Friend,

JULIA M. VARRAN,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 150274

COA: 321866

Washtenaw CC: 03

- 000271

- DC

PETER J. GRANNEMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

DEBORAH GRANNEMAN and JAMES

GRANNEMAN,

Intervenors

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the order of the Court of Appeals and we

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration. On remand, we

DIRECT the Court of Appeals to issue an opinion specifically addressing the issue of

whether an order regarding grandparenting time may affec t custody within the meaning

of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), or otherwise be appealable by right under MCR 7.203(A). If the

Court of Appeals determines that the Washtenaw Circuit Court Family Division’s order is

appealable by right, it shall take jurisdiction ov er the defendant

- appellant’s claim of

appeal and address its merits. If the Court of Appeals determines that the Washtenaw

Circuit Court Family Division’s order is not appealable by right, it may then dismiss the

defendant

- appellant’s claim of appeal for lack of jurisdiction, or exercise its discretion to

treat the claim of appeal as an application for leave to appeal and grant the application.

See Wardell v Hincka , 297 Mich App 127, 133 n 1 (2012).

We direct the Court of Appeals’ attention to the fact that we are also remanding

the related case of Varran v Granneman (Docket No. 150319) and that the related cases,

Varran v Granneman (Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 324412 and 324763), are currently

pending in the Court of Appeals.
Fidel Perez GONI, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9543.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-31189

Summary Calendar

 

LESLIE BURNS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRUCE LYNN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF

LOUISIANA; JOHN P. WHITLEY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE

PENITENTIARY; MARTIN REGEL; LESLIE DUPONT, Major; CHARLES

CRAIN; BERT DUCOTE, Doctor; CALVIN BATISTE; STANLEY GRIFFIN;

FOSTER ANDREWS, Security Major; DONNIE PARKER; ROBERT E.

SCHOTT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 90-CV-941-A-1

- - - - - - - - - -

May 12, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Leslie Burns appeals from the district

court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants on Burns’s

claims, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the

defendants violated his constitutional rights by intentionally 

forcing him to perform work duties that they knew would

significantly aggravate his back condition. Burns has also filed
No. 96-31189

-2-

a motion for an order of production of medical records and a

motion for an order to supplement the record with these medical

records, or, in the alternative, to remand and stay the instant

appeal.

We generally review a grant of summary judgment de novo. 

Green v. Touro Infirmary, 992 F.2d 537, 538 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Here, however, despite the magistrate judge’s warning, Burns

failed to object to any of the factual findings, conclusions of

law, or recommendations contained in the magistrate judge’s

report, which was adopted by the district court in granting

summary judgment for the defendants. Accordingly, we review

Burns’s appeal from the summary judgment for plain error. See

Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th

Cir. 1996)(en banc). “Under the plain error standard, we may

exercise our discretion to correct errors that seriously affect

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings if the appellant shows clear or obvious error that

affects his substantial rights.” United States v. McPhail, 112

F.3d 197, 199 (5th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).

After closely examining the record, and considering the

parties’ arguments, we can discern no plain error in the district

court’s ruling. Accordingly, Burns’s motions are denied, and the

district court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(1)
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.






Dated:
      August 8, 2008


By: /s/
      Jeffrey F. O'Donnell


Jeffrey
      F. O'Donnell


Chief
      Executive Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“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 PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.






E-32.1
Exhibit 10.3



Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Changes to Named
Executive Officer Base Salary and Bonus Targets

Fiscal Year 2007

Approved by the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee on November 2, 2006





|                        |  |                                                                               |  |             |  |              
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------- |  | -------------
|Name                    |  | Title                                                                         |  | Base Salary |  | Bonus Target*
|Crawford W. Beveridge** |  | Executive Vice President, Global Government Strategy                          |  | $567,000    |  | 85%          
|Michael A. Dillon       |  | Executive Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary                       |  | $450,000    |  | 85%          
|William N. MacGowan     |  | Chief Human Resources Officer and Executive Vice President, People and
Places |  | $475,000    |  | 85%          

* Expressed as a percentage of the Named Executive Officers base salary.

** Mr. Beveridge is not currently an Executive Officer of the Company.
Exhibit 99.2 

 

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 on Form 10–Q for the period ended May 31, 2003of ACR Group, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony R. Maresca, Chief Financial Officer, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company. 

 

/s/ Anthony R. Maresca

Anthony R. Maresca 

Chief Financial Officer 

July 15, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-11

)

BRUCE T. KING )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on July 1, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and counsel

for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 1st day of July 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
----

----

|                                       | PhotoMedex, Inc. |                                             |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |             |                                             |   |
| Date:  May 17, 2010    | By:              | /s/ Dennis M. McGrath                       |   |
|                                       |             | Name:  Dennis M. McGrath                    |   |
|                                       |             | Title:    Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                       |             |                                             |   |

----

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 21588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10930]



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


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 3, 1995.

PLACE: Room 432, Federal Trade Commission Building, 6th Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.

STATUS: Open.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Discussion of status of Telemarketing 
Rulemaking.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bonnie Jansen, Office of Public 
Affairs: (202) 326-2180, Recorded Message: (202) 326-2711.

Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10930 Filed 4-28-95; 3:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Jermaine MEDEARIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7267.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORPORATION, petitioner, v. William L. HOEPER.

No. 12-315.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado granted limited to the following question: Whether ATSA immunity may be denied without a determination that the air carrier's disclosure was materially false.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties, Ltd. II 1996 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711642
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES LTD. II
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      121
<ALLOWANCES>                                        72
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          34,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         18,404
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,560)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,733
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,090
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (284)   
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (173)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.53)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a Sua Sponte 

Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been filed. The defendants 

have opposed. As the judge assigned to case 

17-cv-00485-WHO

City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump

I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case 

assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not related to 

the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related 

case determination.

Case Title Related Not Related

17-cv-04642-SBA City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions WHO

ORDER

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials of 

the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management conference in any 

reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, 

disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly. Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for 

hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re- noticed by the moving party before the newly 

assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 156 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 2
2

in a case management order continue to govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be 

rescheduled by the newly assigned judge.

Dated: August 23, 2017 By: ________________________

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 156 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 12**

 

**Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries**

Computationof Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges

 
|                                                                                  |   | **Three Months Ended  March 31,** |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
| **(Dollars in millions)**                                                             |   | **2003**                               |   | **2002** |   |
| Income:                                                                               |   |                                   |   |   |   |
| Income (loss) before provision  (benefit) for income taxes                            |   | $                                      | (113   | ) | $ | 66 |   |
| Fixed charges                                                                         |   | 111                                    |   | 90 |   |
| Income (loss) before provision  (benefit) for income taxes  and fixed  charges   |   | $                                      | (2     | ) | $ | 156 |   |
|                                                                                  |   |                                   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                                        |   |                                   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                                      |   | $                                      | 111    |   | $ | 90 |   |
|                                                                                  |   |                                   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of income before  provision for income taxes and fixed charges to fixed charges |   | —                                 | (1)    | 1.73 |   |

 

----

(1)     Income was inadequate tocover fixed charges by $113 million for the three months endedMarch 31, 2003.

 

----