alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Steven L. RUTHERFORD, Plaintiff—Appellant v. EMPLOYMENT STANDARD ADMINISTRATION, Office of Worker Compensation, Defendant—Appellee. Steven L. Rutherford, Plaintiff—Appellant v. United States Justice Department; Jim Letten, Attorney, U.S. Justice Department; Thomas L. Watson, Assistant U.S. Attorney Chief, Civil Division, Defendants—Appellees. Steven L. Rutherford, Plaintiff—Appellant v. United States Department of Labor, Branch of Hearing and Review, Defendant—Appellee. Steven L. Rutherford, Plaintiff—Appellant v. United States Department of Labor, Defendant—Appellee. Steven L. Rutherford, Plaintiff—Appellant v. Employees Compensation Appeals Board, Defendant—Appellee. Steven L. Rutherford, Plaintiff—Appellant v. United States Postal Service; United States Postal Inspection Service, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-30873

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 3, 2011.

Steven L. Rutherford, Amite, LA, pro se.

*320Peter M. Mansfield, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven L. Rutherford has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his consolidated lawsuit relating to the denial of his Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) claim. The district court also dismissed with prejudice Rutherford’s related claims against two defendants based on qualified immunity. Rutherford has also filed in this court motions seeking “Injunction of Relief,” a writ of habeas corpus, a “Writ of Release,” a “Writ of Seizure,” and expedited consideration of two of these motions.

To proceed IFP, Rutherford must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal is taken in good faith, *ie.,*that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982).

Rutherford has not shown that he is financially eligible to proceed IFP in his appeal. *See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,*335 U.S. 331, 339-40, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). His motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied.

Examination of the record, Rutherford’s appellate brief, and his various motions and responses show that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2; *Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir. 1997). Rutherford’s remaining motions are also denied.

ALL MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1532

SUE ELLEN SELLARS HAMMONDS, a resident of New

Hanover County,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH MCQUEEN, Sheriff of New Hanover County

Sheriff's Department,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-226-7-F)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sue Ellen Sellars Hammonds, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison

Sasser, III, Coleman M. Cowan, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Appellant alleged that Sheriff Joseph McQueen violated

her civil rights while she was visiting the Sheriff's Department.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Hammonds v. McQueen, No. CA-96-226-7-F

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 1997). Although McQueen was named as a defendant, Appellant did not allege that McQueen was personally involved

in the claimed assault or that he had knowledge of conduct that

posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury.

Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated that McQueen was deliberately indifferent to or tacitly authorized the alleged offensive

practices. See Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798-99 (4th Cir. 1994).

Appellant has also failed to allege proof of a custom or policy

favoring the commission of the alleged constitutional violations

necessary to maintain an action against McQueen in his official

capacity. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

690-91 (1978). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### TINNEY v. PIERREPONT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by Bernard J. Tinney against Margaretta Pierrepont.

No opinion. Motion to send record back in order that motion may be made for resettlement granted, upon payment of §10 costs.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-3991

_____________

ERNESTO GALARZA,

Appellant

v. 

MARK SZALCZYK; CITY OF ALLENTOWN;

LEHIGH COUNTY; GREG MARINO;

CHRISTIE CORREA

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Civil Action No. 10-cv-6815)

District Judge: Hon. James Knoll Gardner

_____________

Argued: October 10, 2013

Before: FUENTES, COWEN, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: March 4, 2014)

___________

O R D E R

It is O R D E R E D that the Opinion entered on March 4, 2014 is amended to 

correct clerical errors, the March 4, 2014, Opinion is amended as follows: 
1. On page 3 of the Court’s Opinion “Christopher N. Lasch, Esq., University of 

Denver Sturm College of Law, 2255 East Evans Avenue, Suite 335, Denver, CO 

80208”

2. On page 21 of the Court’s Opinion “Br. for Law Professors at 14” should read 

“Br. for Law Professors at 4.”

By the Court, 

s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Circuit Judge

Dated: April 16, 2014

SLC/cc: Counsel of Record
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Si Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of
AMERICAN LORAIN CORPORATION (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
      the Company.                                                               

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 9th day of May, 2012.

/s/ Si ChenSi Chen Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to American Lorain Corporation and will be retained by
American Lorain Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          63,757
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,617,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                   152,111
<INVENTORY>                                    647,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,109,802
<PP&E>                                       2,490,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                 433,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,974,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,646,099
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,825
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,971,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,974,053
<SALES>                                      1,023,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,400,941
<CGS>                                          532,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  816,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               959,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (375,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (375,070)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (375,070)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, 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:





(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.








/s/    TIMOTHY J. STEINKOPF





Timothy J. Steinkopf


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


November 13, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2660 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2660

    To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the age of 
    eligibility for children to receive benefits under the special 
 supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2015

   Ms. DeLauro (for herself, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. 
     Rangel, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Lee, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. 
  Schakowsky, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mrs. Torres, Ms. Moore, Mr. 
    Serrano, Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Fudge, Mrs. 
 Napolitano, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Farr, Mr. Payne, 
 and Ms. Pingree) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the age of 
    eligibility for children to receive benefits under the special 
 supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wise Investment in our Children 
Act'' or the ``WIC Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
              NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN.

    Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) is 
amended--
            (1) by amending subsection (b)(2) to read as follows:
            ``(2) `Children' means persons who have attained their 
        first birthday but have not yet attained their sixth birthday, 
        except in a case in which a State agency determines that the 
        waiver of such age limit is necessary to accommodate the unique 
        circumstances of an individual child.'';
            (2) in subsection (e)(4)(A), by striking ``up to age 5'' 
        and inserting ``under the age of 6''; and
            (3) in subsection (f)(7)(D)(i), by striking ``age of 5'' 
        and inserting ``age of 6''.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

    Section 1902(a)(53)(A) of title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396a(a)(53)(A)) is amended by striking ``age of 5'' and 
inserting ``age of 6''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles R. Waldron, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.



Date:    September 24, 2007

By:

/s/ CHARLES R. WALDRONName:

Charles R. WaldronTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Robert Berkowitz et al., Appellants, v Maurice N. Sholtzow, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated October 10, 1985, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated September 4, 1985, which, *inter alia,*upon their default in appearing, denied their prior motion to vacate a default judgment dated June 22, 1984, which dismissed their action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Pino at Special Term. We note, additionally, that the plaintiffs have failed to provide the requisite medical affidavit *(see, Warner v Kudler,*101 AD2d 886). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Edward McGourty, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County *418(Ritter, J.), rendered October 14, 1982, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As a condition of accepting his plea, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to seek appellate review of the order denying his suppression motion. In any event suppression was properly denied. Further, the defendant never sought to withdraw his plea or set aside his conviction prior to sentencing. Therefore, he cannot now raise that issue on appeal *(see, People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829, *cert denied 423 US 873; People v Ricciardi,*121 AD2d 407; *People v Colarusso,*103 AD2d 848). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.
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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel P. Ryan, Chief Executive 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:

(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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Daniel P. Ryan                   
|Daniel P. Ryan                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 11, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          47,931                  89,545
<SECURITIES>                                       612                       9
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,932                 108,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,031                   7,524
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               285,397                 358,588
<PP&E>                                         118,122                 147,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,755                  61,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,614                 786,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,071                 320,303
<BONDS>                                         12,283                 190,964
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            89                     100
<OTHER-SE>                                     357,289                 271,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   615,614                 786,463
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               493,803                 638,480
<CGS>                                          322,980                 437,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,856                 588,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,638)                 (2,873)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,753                   5,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,832                  46,593
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,472                  29,495
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,360                  17,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,446                (11,562)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,806                   5,536
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33                    0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32                    0.23


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John R. Lagana, Appellant.

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided January 11, 2007

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CENES PHARMACEUTICALS PLC

                           (All amounts in thousands)

                              (In Pounds Sterling)





July 15, 2002




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington D.C. 20549
United States








Re: Arthur Andersen



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Arthur Andersen has represented to CeNeS Pharmaceuticals plc that its audit was
subject to the firm's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of U.S. national office consultation. The availability of personnel
at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the
audit is not relevant to this audit.


Sincerely,



/s/ Neil Clark

Neil Clark
Finance Director and Chief Operating Officer



                                        1
<Page>

                                   EXHIBIT 99

                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 Annual Report on Form 20-F Tioga Technologies Ltd.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Izhak Tamir, 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.


Date: June 25, 2003


/s/ Izhak Tamir
Izhak Tamir
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer

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 Tioga Technologies Ltd. and will
be retained by Tioga Technologies Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. A-571.

#### Dubose et al. *v.*Harris, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

Application to vacate stay of a preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.