alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court.

A s lip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders . F or example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential

purposes a previously “un published” o pinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions : the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.

The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official

text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports . Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports ) of the revi sed opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports

. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official r eports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

__________________________________________

 : 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES : 

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : Civil Action No: 03 C 2182 

 v. : 

 : 

FRANK J. CUSTABLE, JR., et al., : Judge Gottschall 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

__________________________________________: Magistrate Judge Valdez 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

FINAL JUDGMENT, BY CONSENT, AGAINST DAVID GILES

Plaintiff, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) moves this 

Court for entry of Final Judgment against David Giles in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

In support of this motion, the SEC states as follows: 

1. This is a securities enforcement action brought by the SEC that arises from 

defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint in this action. 

2. Defendant David Giles has executed a consent to the entry of the proposed Final 

Judgment against him. A copy of this consent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 

3. The proposed Final Judgment resolves all of the SEC’s claims against Mr. Giles 

in this action. 

4. Entry of this Final Judgment is in the interest of justice and of judicial economy. 

5. Pursuant to the Court’s case management procedures, an electronic copy of the 

proposed Final Judgment, in a format compatible with WordPerfect, has been separately 

submitted by email to the email address provided by the Court for such purposes. 
2

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the SEC requests that the Court grant this 

motion and entered the proposed Final Judgment against David Giles. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Steven J. Levine 

Steven J. Levine (IL Bar No, 6226921) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

175 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 900 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Tel: (312) 353-7390 

 Fax: (312) 353-7398 

Dated: February 4, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 2 and 3 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 1997, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,082,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,159,693
<PP&E>                                         325,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (61,638)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,998,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,488,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,886,584
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,619,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,998,150
<SALES>                                      4,718,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,718,106
<CGS>                                        3,502,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,502,741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               667,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                467,173
<INCOME-TAX>                                   185,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   278,249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02

</TABLE>
933 F.2d 1042

#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Albert E. MILLS.

Nos. 90-3007, 90-3008.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 29, 1991.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1991.

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, WALD, EDWARDS, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS, D.H. GINSBURG, SENTELLE, THOMAS, HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellees’ Suggestions For Rehearing *En Banc,*the response thereto and the reply have been circulated to the full Court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the Court in regular, active service voted in favor of the suggestions. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*that the suggestions are granted and these cases will be considered and decided by the Court sitting *en banc.*It is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*that the judgment of the panel filed in these consolidated cases on February 8, 1991, be, and the same hereby is, vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*that oral argument will be heard on Wednesday, November 20, 1991, at 10:00 AM. The parties are directed to submit thirty copies of the joint appendix, if such is deemed necessary, and thirty copies of briefs. Along with any other issues deemed pertinent, the parties should address the following issues in their briefs:

(1) Should the Court sitting *en bane*overturn or otherwise modify its ruling that “a District of Columbia arrest should be treated as a state arrest” for purposes of The Speedy Trial Act? *See United States v. Robertson,*810 F.2d 254, 256 (D.C.Cir.1987).

(2) How does the Speedy Trial Act apply to the circumstances of these appeals?

(3) If the Court were to overturn or otherwise modify its holding in *Robertson,*should such decision be given retroactive effect?

Briefs shall be filed in accordance with the following schedule:

Appellee’s Brief(s) July 16, 1991

Brief of amici curiae August 5, 1991

Appellant’s Brief September 19, 1991

Appellee’s Reply Brief(s) October 10, 1991

Joint Appendix, if any October 17, 1991

Final Briefs, if any October 24, 1991

Appellees are directed to submit a joint brief if at all possible. Appellee’s are further directed to advise the court on or before July 16, 1991, whether an appendix will be utilized.
Order entered February 11 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01 111
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T .L.R. AND A.R.R. , CHILDREN On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 0 9
- 12373 

### O RDER Both the clerk’s and reporter’s records in this case are overdue. By postcard dated November 1, 2012 , we notified the court reporter that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within thirty d ays. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. Also by postcard dated November 1, 2012 , we notified the district clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue. We directed the district clerk to file the clerk’s record within thirty days. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, this Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, either the clerk’s record or written verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record. We notifiy appellant that if we receive verification he is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b).We ORDER Francheska Duffey , official cou rt reporter for the 193rd Judicial District Court, to file, withing FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either: (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record. We notifiy appellant that if we receive verification he is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c)

. We D IRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic tranmission, to the following persons: Gary Fitzsimmons Dallas County District Clerk Francheska Duffey Official Court Reporter, 330th Judicial District Court

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

RAUL ARCILA,

FABIAN SANDOVAL-RAMOS,

Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 16-30109, 16-30110

D.C. Nos. 3:14-cr-00267-BR-3

 3:14-cr-00267-BR-1

District of Oregon, 

Portland

ORDER

Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.

The court sua sponte consolidates appeal Nos. 16-30109 and 16-30110. 

The appellants’ unopposed motions (Docket Entry No. 14 in 16-30109, Docket

Entry No. 5 in 16-30110) for further extensions of time to file the opening briefs

are granted. The opening brief(s) are due January 18, 2017. The appellants are

reminded of the court’s preference for joint briefing. See Circuit Advisory

Committee Note to 9th Cir. R. 32-2. The consolidated answering brief is due

February 17, 2017. The optional reply brief(s) are due within 14 days after service

of the consolidated answering brief. 

FILED

NOV 07 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

tah/11.7.16/Pro Mo

Case 3:14-cr-00267-JO Document 260 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16940]

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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Docket No. SSA-2021-0028]

Public Availability of Social Security Administration Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2019 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of public availability of FY 2019 Service Contract 
inventories.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2010, we are publishing this notice to advise the public of the 
availability of the FY 2019 Service Contract inventory. This inventory 
provides information on FY 2019 service contract actions over $25,000. 
We organized the information by function to show how we distribute 
contracted resources throughout the agency. We developed the inventory 
in accordance with guidance issued on December 19, 2011 by the Office 
of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 
OFPP's guidance is available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventory-guidance.pdf. You can access the inventory and summary of the inventory 
on our homepage at the following link: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/sci.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronnetta Mason, Office of Budget, 
Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 
21235-6401. Phone (410) 597-1955, email [email protected].

Michelle King,
Deputy Commissioner, for Budget, Finance, and Management.
[FR Doc. 2021-16940 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
```
**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 on Form 10-QSB of Sontra Medical
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Sean F. Moran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that to 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 results of operations of the Company.




**/s/
                Sean F. Moran****Sean
                F. Moran****Chief
                Financial Officer****May
                11, 2006**
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on his knowledge and belief: 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III                     
|Austin L. Roberts, III, Chief Executive Officer
|                                               
|/s/ Deborah M. Evans                           
|Deborah M. Evans, Treasurer                    

May 1, 2007

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



22
## Law Office of Michael S. Truesdale, PLLC

Michael S. Truesdale mike@truesdalelaw.com

Board Certified • Civil Appellate Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization

801 West Avenue , Suite 2 01 Austin, Texas 78701 512. 482.8671 (ofc) • 866.847.8719 (fax) • www.truesdalelaw.com September 2 9 , 2016

Honorable Jeffrey Kyle, Clerk Third Court of Appeals P.O. Box 12547 Austin, TX 78711

Re: 03

- 15

- 00447

- CV, Austin Capital Collision v. Barbara Pampalone , Confirmation of intention to present oral argument

Dear Mr. Kyle:

In response t o this Court’s September 15, 2016 correspondence, this letter confirms my intention to present oral argument in this case on October 26, 2016 on behalf of Appellant Austin Capital Collision and Cross

- Appellee Eric Hinojosa.

I request that my time for argu ment be divided as follows: 13 minutes for argument on behalf of Appellant, and 7 minutes for reply/response to Cross

- Appellee’s argument.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael S. Truesdale Michael S. Truesdale SBN 00791825 Counsel for Appellant Austin C apital Collision and Cross

- Appellee Eric Hinojosa

cc: Nelia Robbi (via e

- service) ACCEPTED 03-15-00447-CV 12971611 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/29/2016 11:38:32 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blue Rhino
Corporation (the Company) for the period ending
April 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Billy D. Prim, Chairman and Chief Executive 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/ Billy D. Prim                                              
|
| | Billy D. Prim
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
June 9, 2003

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Blue Rhino Corporation
and will be retained by Blue Rhino Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURJIT KAUR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-75086

Agency No. A079-806-290

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012 

**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Gurjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

APR 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-75086

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992

(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to present sufficient evidence of

changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time limit, see 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (requiring movant to

produce material evidence that conditions in the country of nationality had

changed). Kaur’s contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its

reasoning is belied by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990

(9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”). 

Further, we decline to consider Kaur’s contentions regarding the

immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination because the court previously

rejected them in Kaur v. Mukasey, No. 04-71978 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2008). See

Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the

‘law of the case doctrine,’one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider

questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case: 1:03-cv-00759 Document #: 260 Filed: 09/08/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:2569
Case: 1:03-cv-00759 Document #: 260 Filed: 09/08/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2570
Case: 1:03-cv-00759 Document #: 260 Filed: 09/08/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:2571
Case: 1:03-cv-00759 Document #: 260 Filed: 09/08/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:2572
Case: 1:03-cv-00759 Document #: 260 Filed: 09/08/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:2573
Case: 1:03-cv-00759 Document #: 260 Filed: 09/08/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:2574
Richard F. McGinty, OSB 86071 

P.O. Box 12806 

Salem, OR 97309 

503-371-9636 

Fax: 503-371-2879 

richard@mcginty-belcher.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DEREK M. FLEENER, Case No.: 6:14-cv-01212-AA 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

Based on the stipulation between the parties through their respective counsel it 

is hereby allowed that the Plaintiff is awarded an EAJA attorney fee in the amount of 

$6,583.68 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, expenses in the amount of $0, and costs in 

the amount of $0 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, for at total of $6,583.68, subject to debt 

owed the US Government described pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as 

discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt then the EAJA check shall be made out to Plaintiff's 

attorney and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's at: PO Box 12806, Salem, OR 97309-0806. 

If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

Page -1- ORDER 6:14-cv-01212AA 

Case 6:14-cv-01212-AA Document 25 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 2
shall be made out to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address 

stated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 'h_ / -

DATED this . t:r 

'l~ day of ~Fftber ~ 2015. 

United States District Court Judge 

Presented by: 

Richard F. McGinty OSB #86071 

503-371-9636 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Page -2- ORDER 6:14-cv-01212AA 

Case 6:14-cv-01212-AA Document 25 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Columbia Laboratories, Inc.


Livingston, NJ




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-75275, 333-125671, 333-132803, 333-140107, and 333-155530) and Form S-8 (No. 333-34079, 333-63470, 333-116072, and 333-152008,) of Columbia Laboratories, Inc. of our reports dated March 12, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of Columbia Laboratories, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 12, 2010 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1.




/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP


BDO Seidman, LLP


Woodbridge, NJ


April 30, 2010