alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

__________________________________________

No. 97-11163

_________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JACQUELINE DENNIS,

 

 Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:97-CV-729-BE)

__________________________________________

June 22, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, REYNALDO G. GARZA, and JOLLY, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM1:

Appellant, Jacqueline Dennis (“Dennis”), is currently

serving a 365-month sentence for her participation in a

conspiracy to kill a federal official and for her use of

interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder for

hire. She is presently incarcerated at the Federal Medical

Center (“FMC”) after developing complex somatic delusions.

On September 29, 1997, Magistrate Judge Bleil conducted a

hearing on the government’s Petition to “Determine Present Mental
2

Condition of an Imprisoned Person, and for Appointment of

Counsel and Qualified Examiner Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4245 and

4247.” The magistrate judge granted the government’s petition

which sought the commitment of Dennis for psychiatric care and

treatment.

Dennis raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the

magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction and/or authority to commit

Dennis to treatment; (2) whether the “preponderance of the

evidence” standard is unconstitutional under these circumstances;

and (3) whether Dennis’ commitment violated her right to free

exercise of religion.

After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, the

district court’s opinion and hearing oral argument, we conclude

that the district court did not err in its findings of fact or in

its application of law. We note, that although the first two

issues raised by Dennis are identical to the ones presented in

United States v. Muhammad, 165 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 1999), the

third issue is slightly different. 

Unlike Muhammad, where we refused to consider the third

issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal, the

record shows that Dennis raised her right to free exercise of

religion during a district court hearing. The magistrate judge

implicitly credited the psychiatrist in concluding that Dennis

had restricted her diet due to mental disease or defect and not

because she was exercising a religious belief. 

We review a district court's factual findings under the
3

clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Lopez-Valdez, No.

97-50949, 1999 WL 350627, at *6 (5th Cir. June 1, 1999)(citing

United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 721 (5th Cir. 1994). A

review of the record reveals that the district court was not

clearly erroneous in finding that Dennis’ actions stemmed from a

mental disease and not from a religious belief. Accordingly, we

AFFIRM the district court in all respects.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 846 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 80 Lafayette Street 

in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the Christopher S. Bond United States 

Courthouse. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 80 

Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the 

Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND UNITED STATES 

4 COURTHOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

6 located at 80 Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, 

7 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Christopher S. 

8 Bond United States Courthouse’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 846 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub4 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chris5 topher S. Bond United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
sino_ex10-3.htm


    Purchase
Agreement

     

    


    This
Purchase Agreement (the
“Agreement”) is made effective as of December 18, 2009 by and between
DongYing (Jiangsu) Pharmaceutical Limited Company, the 100% owned subsidiary of
Sinobiopharma, Inc. (“DongYing”), located at No.
2 Zhongtian Road, Nantong, Jiangsu, 226009, P. R. China and
Meisu Jining Secience and Technology (Nanjing) Limited Company (“ Meisu Jining”), located at
Hubing Xincun, Jiangning Economic and
Technology Development District, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210000, P. R. China,
to transfer the right of the Approval Certificate of Clinical Trial of
Eplerenone Tablets (the “Certificate”) owned by Meisu
Jining to DongYing.

    


    In
reliance upon and in consideration of the following undertakings, the parties
agree as followings:

     

    
      	
              1.

            	
              Meisu
      Jining owns the Approval Certificate of Clinical Trial of Eplerenone
      Tablets issued by China National Food And Drug Administration, the
      certificate number is 2007L01305, DongYing, within 5 days after this
      Agreement being signed, issue 3,000,000 common shares to Meisu Jining to
      buy this Certificate.

            


    

     

     

    
 

    
      
         


      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    


    
      	
              2.

            	
              Meisu
      Jining should transfer all related technical documents and materials to
      DongYing within 5 days after this Agreement being signed.

               

            


    

    
      	
              3.

            	
              After
      this Agreement become effective, DongYing has the sole ownership to the
      Certificate. Meisu Jining can not transfer this Certificate to any third
      party.

               

            


    

    
      	
              4.

            	
              If
      any dispute arises between the parties with respect to the matters covered
      by this Agreement, the lawsuit will file to the jurisdiction at the
      plaintiff’s location.

               

            


    

    
      	
              5.

            	
              This
      Agreement becomes effective when both party sign or stamp. Both parties
      have a copy of this Agreement and both copy has equal
      effectiveness

               

            


    

    


    


    


    


    


    


    


    



    
      
         


      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    


    


    


    /s/ Meisu Jining Secience and Technology (Nanjing)
Ltd.

     

    Meisu
Jining Secience and Technology (Nanjing) Ltd.

     

    Date:
12/18/09

     

    
 

    /s/ DongYing (Jiangsu) Pharmaceutical Ltd.

     

    DongYing
(Jiangsu) Pharmaceutical Ltd.

    


    Date:
12/18/09

    


    


     

     

     

    
 

    



    
      
         


      

      
        3
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Edward Flores v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00295

- CR

Trial court case number: 12

- 08

- 08659 CR

Trial court: 9th District Court of Montgomery C ounty

A motion for rehearing in this cause was due on March 13, 2015. On March 30, 2015,

Appellant timely filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. Tex. R. App.

P. 49.8. The motion did not specify an amount of additional time re quested. Fourteen additional

days have passed since the motion for extension was filed and no motion for rehearing has yet

been filed.

Appellant’s motion for extension is granted and the motion for rehearing is now due

April 21, 2015. No further motion fo r extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael M a ssengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 14, 2015
# C_2020103EN.01003101.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/31

---

Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS

(Case T-43/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Civil service - Civil servants - Out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 103/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the EEAS’s decision of 28 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for compensation and, in so far as necessary, the EEAS’s decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 June 2018; and second, compensation in respect of the harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the EEAS’s conduct towards her.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | WV is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

WV is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Michael V. Valenza, the Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of Radnor Holdings Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

         The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended March 28,
         2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  May 7, 2003                     /s/ Michael V. Valenza
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                            Michael V. Valenza
                                            Senior Vice President-Finance and
                                            Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement 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.

                                        2
#### Lucie Jandt, Respondent, v Jacob Abele, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, defendant Jacob Abele appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Buell, J.), dated April 22, 1985, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $100,000.

Judgment reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 20 days after service upon plaintiff of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, she shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in her favor as against appellant to the principal sum of $65,000, and to entry of an amended judgment accordingly. In the event that plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

This action arises from an automobile accident which oc*700curred on New York State Route 22 on April 4, 1983. The plaintiff was a passenger in the automobile operated by defendant Jacob Abele. Immediately following the accident, plaintiff spent five days in the hospital and was confined to her home for several weeks. Plaintiff’s medical expenses amounted to approximately $2,100. She is 82 years of age, not employed outside the home, and claims no loss of earnings.

Plaintiff’s injuries basically consisted of a fracture of the fibula in the right leg which required no casting, a hematoma and laceration of the forehead which required seven to eight stitches, and a cerebral concussion. Following her release from the hospital, plaintiff made only four accident-related visits to her physician. On the fourth visit she was regarded asymptomatic and discharged with respect to the injury in question. Plaintiff asserts that she continues to suffer leg pain, headaches and distress. As a result of her injury, she now uses a cane. Plaintiff’s physician testified that her leg pain and headaches would most likely be permanent.

The amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question of fact for the jury. However, where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, or where it is excessive, it may be set aside and a new trial granted *(see, Senko v Fonda,*53 AD2d 638).

Under the circumstances here, the $100,000 verdict in favor of plaintiff and against appellant was excessive to the extent indicated.

Finally, we have reviewed defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting an expert medical witness to testify based on a review of the record and a hypothetical question posed to him by plaintiff’s attorney, and find it to be without merit *(see, Byczek v City of New York,*81 AD2d 823). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
BLUEFLY, INC.
                                  JUNE 30, 2003

                                                                    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 Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick C. Barry,
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:

     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/ Patrick C. Barry

Patrick C. Barry
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003

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 Bluefly, Inc. and will be retained
by Bluefly, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

3 Diar, LLC 

Under Contract No. SIL 10-246 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61362 

Mr. Robyn D. Cherry 

Director 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Bruce H. Robinson, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 3 April 2018 

dministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61362, Appeal of 3 Diar, LLC, rendered 

in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# C_2019148EN.01005901.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/59

---

Action brought on 14 February 2019 — WH v EUIPO

(Case T-138/19)

(2019/C 148/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should hold that the dismissal of her action is unjustified and grant her, with full retroactive effect, the promotion which she rightfully deserves.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2018 promotion procedure.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of her rights of defence as a result of procedural unfairness.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 61 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 61

   Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not in the 
                economic interest of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 6, 2012

   Mr. Vitter (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
 Coburn, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Heller, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, 
  Mr. Johanns, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Lee, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Moran, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thune, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cochran, and 
 Mr. Wicker) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not in the 
                economic interest of the United States.

Whereas a carbon tax is regressive in nature and would unfairly burden those 
        vulnerable individuals and families in the United States that are 
        already struggling under a stagnating economy;
Whereas a carbon tax would increase the cost of every good manufactured in the 
        United States;
Whereas a carbon tax would harm the entire United States manufacturing sector;
Whereas the increase in production of domestic energy resources on private and 
        State-owned land has created significant job growth and private capital 
        investment; and
Whereas affordable and reliable energy sources are critical to maintaining the 
        United States' global competitiveness: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental 
to American families and businesses, and is not in the interest of the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, James Hennen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/   James Hennen | 
| |                                                  
| | James HennenChief Financial OfficerApril 22, 2005 | 

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, John Mutch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in such QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date: November 9,2005

|        | /s/ JOHN MUTCH                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | John Mutch                            |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Systems, Inc. and willbe retained by Peregrine Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission upon request.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: SUBPOENA FOR APPEARANCE 

AS CHARACTER WITNESS ISSUED TO 

JUDGE CRAIG TREBILCOCK

:

:

:

No. 72 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of a 

Subpoena is DENIED.

Justice Todd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.