alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CELSIS IN VITRO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLZDIRECT, INC. and Invitrogen Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2011-1337.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 1, 2011.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, GAJARSA and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

RADER, Chief Judge.

Celsis in Vitro, Inc. moves for an injunction pending disposition of this appeal. CellzDirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corporation oppose. Celsis replies.

Rule 8(a)(l)(C)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes this court to grant an injunction pending appeal. Similar to a motion to stay a judgment or injunction pending appeal, which is authorized under the same rule, our determination is governed by four factors, the first two of which are the most critical: (1) whether the stay applicant had made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent relief; (3) whether issuance of the order will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. *Hilton v. Braunskill,*481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).

Based on the arguments in the motions papers, and without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this ease by a merits panel, we determine that Celsis has not met its burden.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is denied.
#### Larry A. WILLS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3290.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 13, 2007.

Willie J. Nunnery, Nunnery Law Offices, of Madison, WI, argued for petitioner.

Robert P. Sindermann, Jr., Appellate Counsel, United States Postal Service, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. *1001With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, and Lori J. Dym, Chief Counsel, Law Department Civil Practice, United States Postal Service, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was David C. Belt.

Before MAYER and PROST, Circuit Judges and LINARES, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Jose L. Linares, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

Judgment

PER CURIAM:

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### TANENBAUM, Respondent, v. GALLAGHER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action-by Leon Tanenbaum against Patrick Gallagher and another.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J, and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

H. A. Brann, for appellants.

T. Cleveland, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                        24059338
<SECURITIES>                                  18278382
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              42603920
<PP&E>                                         4751479
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2215384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                45167943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1887280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    4631805
<COMMON>                                        130158
<OTHER-SE>                                    38083778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  45167943
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                840025
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 13903404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (13063379)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (13063379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (13063379)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.26)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         001043274  
<NAME>                        Westower Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $US
       
<S>                             <C>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                            3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999       FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998       OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998       DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1                 1    
<CASH>                                         4,862,000         7,221,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  20,729,000        7,708,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0                 0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,489,000         936,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35,876,000        20,247,000        
<PP&E>                                         10,290,000        4,409,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,849,000         1,302,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 99,369,000        24,623,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,642,000        7,578,000     
<BONDS>                                        39,936,000        905,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                 0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                 0
<COMMON>                                       83,000            61,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,583,000        15,479,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   99,369,000        24,623,000
<SALES>                                        0                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24,988,000        11,957,000
<CGS>                                          0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,144,000        8,756,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,924,000         1,791,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             572,000           26,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,401,000         1,426,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   610,000           500,000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            791,000           926,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                 0
<CHANGES>                                      0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                   791,000           926,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.10              0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.09              0.15
        

 
  

</TABLE>
# Cuban Medical Professional Parole (CMPP) Program

On January 12, the United States and Cuba signed an agreement to further normalize our migration relationship. Under the agreement, the Department of Homeland Security ended the Cuban Medical Professional Parole (CMPP) Program.  In light of the program’s termination, USCIS will process CMPP cases as follows:
                - CMPP requests initiated by Cuban medical professionals at a U.S. embassy or consulate before 5 p.m. Eastern time on January 12, 2017, will continue to be processed and adjudicated by USCIS to completion.
                - A CMPP principal applicant who initiated a parole request before that time will be able to request parole for an accompanying spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age.
                - Once the principal applicant is paroled into the United States, he or she may complete the process by requesting parole under the CMPP Program for spouses and unmarried children under 21 years of age as following-to-join beneficiaries, whether in Cuba or in a third country.  USCIS will continue to accept CMPP following-to-join requests as follows:                   - A medical professional paroled into the United States  before  January 12, 2017 must file his or her following-to-join requests no later than Wednesday, July 12, 2017.
                  - A medical professional paroled into the U.S.  on or after  January 12, 2017, must file his or her following-to-join requests within 6 months after being paroled into the United States.  For example, a person paroled on February 24, 2017, must file any following-to-join requests by August 24, 2017.

## Background

On August 11, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would allow certain Cuban medical personnel in third countries (that is, not in Cuba or the United States) to apply for parole at a U.S. embassy or consulate. The parole requests are adjudicated by USCIS.

Under the CMPP Program, doctors and other professionals in the health field, sent by the Government of Cuba to work or study in third countries, could request parole into the United States. In addition, the spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21 of individuals meeting the program’s criteria could be included in the parole request. The family members could be present with the medical professional in the third country or could be residing in Cuba.

01/19/2017

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Woodrow FLEMMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lester WRIGHT, Medical Doctor, Donald Selsky, Director of Special Housing, Anthony Boucaud, Deputy for Administration, Burdick, Medical Doctor for Flemming 12-03 to 3-05, Admikis, Hearing Lieutenant and Acting Captain, Regional Medical Unit Walsh Mohawk, Rosadro, Deputy, Head of Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Medical Center, Sharma, Head Medical Doctor in charge at Regional Medical Unit Walsh, Bishop, Security Sergeant at Upstate Correctional Facility, Pierce, Security Sergeant at Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Mohawk, N. Smith, Nurse Administrator of Upstate Medical, Evelyn Weissman, Head Medical Director in charge, Upstate Correctional Facility, Deana L. Buffham, Medical Medication Nurse, Upstate Correctional Facility, Batis, In charge of Nursing, A Wing, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh, Lisa O’Bryant, Nurse in charge, A Wing, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh, Lovett, Security Officer at Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Mohawk Correction, Szajer, Security Officer at Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Mohawk, Davis, Medication Nurse, E Wing, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh, Miller, Medication Nurse, Michael Maher, Acting Superintendent, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Medical Complex, Mohawk Corrections, Gardner, Security Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-3565-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 20, 2011.

Woodrow Flemming, Malone, NY, pro se.

No appearance for Appellees.

Present: ROBERT D. SACK, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Woodrow Flemming, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s decision and order denying his motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), for relief from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

We review the denial of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. *Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana,*162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998). “A district *12court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous assessment of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks omitted).

Having conducted an independent and *de novo*review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s order for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.

We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00410-CR

RICHARD RECIO, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 232nd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1459599).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on April 23, 

2015. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised 

by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. 

Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered December 29, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd. Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.
#### Paul COOPER, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, Appellee, B.J. McAlister; Jerry Williams; Glen Chavers, Defendants.

No. 10-3260.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2011.

Filed: April 26, 2011.

*611Paul Cooper, Conway, AR, pro se.

Angela Richardson Dodson, David S. Long, Mark Umeda, Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Cooper appeals following entry of judgment by the District Court1 upon an adverse jury verdict in this employment-discrimination action. After careful review, *see Strand v. Diversified Collection Sen., Inc.,*880 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir.2004) (noting that a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss is reviewed *de*novo); *Anderson v. Larson,*327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir.2003) (noting that a grant of summary judgment is reviewed *de*novo), we affirm.

Specifically, we agree with the court that several claims were not administratively exhausted because they did not grow out of, and were not reasonably related to, the allegations contained in Cooper’s charge of discrimination. *See Cottrill v. MFA, Inc.,*443 F.3d 629, 634 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*549 U.S. 954, 127 S.Ct. 394, 166 L.Ed.2d 272 (2006). Cooper’s purported amendment to his charge was unsigned and bore no evidence that it was ever filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

As to the retaliation claim, the court properly elected to apply a burden-shifting analysis because Cooper failed to present direct evidence of retaliation. *See Smith v. Fainiew Ridges Hosp.,*625 F.3d 1076, 1087 (8th Cir.2010), *petition for cert. filed,*— U.S.L.W. -, (U.S. Mar. 14, 2011) (No. 10-9547). Further, summary judgment was proper. The evidence shows a nondiscriminatory reason for Cooper’s termination — fighting in the workplace in violation of department policy— and he failed to create a trialworthy issue that this reason was pretextual and the true motivation was to retaliate against him for litigation he had initiated some four years earlier. *See Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co.,*462 F.3d 925, 935 (8th Cir. 2006). Finally, we are unable to review Cooper’s challenge to the jury’s verdict or the composition of the jury itself because he failed to order a trial transcript. *See Meroney v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp.,*18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir.1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5865 

To amend title 44, United States Code, to prohibit the Archivist of the 

United States from making grants to preserve or publish non-Federal records. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2010 

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. ISSA, Mr. WILSON

of South Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. 

COFFMAN of Colorado, and Mr. BILBRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 44, United States Code, to prohibit the Archivist of the United States from making grants to preserve 

or publish non-Federal records. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Wasting Archive 

5 Grants Act of 2010’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5865 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED 

2 STATES FROM MAKING GRANTS TO PRE3 SERVE OR PUBLISH NON-FEDERAL RECORDS. 

4 Section 2504(e) of title 44, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 

6 ‘‘The Archivist may not make grants to preserve or pub7 lish non-Federal records.’’ 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# Adoption Information: Guatemala

Guatemala is a party to the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention. DOS determined that Guatemala is currently not meeting its obligations under the Convention. For this reason, DOS Consular officers cannot issue the required Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration at this time.

In light of the inability to complete the immigration process for Hague cases, prospective adoptive parents are strongly urged not to file Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country, identifying Guatemala as the country from which they intend to adopt.

## Related Links

                - Intercountry Adoptions: Guatemala

01/28/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Carroll Shelby, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Engine
Technologies, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

(c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.


Date: November 15, 2004                        /s/ CARROLL SHELBY
                                               ------------------
                                                   Carroll Shelby, President
THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NORTHCAROLINA.       **SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.**         By: /s/ DAVID P. COSPER     Name: David P. Cosper    Title: Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer  
 

 
**LOANS AND PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO**                                   **Amount of**                    **Principal or**  **Outstanding**              **End of**  **Interest**  **Principal**        **Type of**  **Amount of**  **Interest**  **Paid This**  **Balance**  **Notation**  **Date**  **Loan Made**  **Loan Made**  **Period**  **Date**  **This Date**  **Made By**
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2414 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2414

 To facilitate the responsible communication of scientific and medical 
                             developments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

 Mr. Burgess (for himself, Mr. Long, and Mr. Schrader) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To facilitate the responsible communication of scientific and medical 
                             developments.

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

SECTION 1. FACILITATING RESPONSIBLE COMMUNICATION OF SCIENTIFIC AND 
              MEDICAL DEVELOPMENTS.

    (a) Guidance.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue 
draft guidance on facilitating the responsible dissemination of 
truthful and non-misleading scientific and medical information not 
included in the approved labeling of drugs and devices.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the terms ``drug'' and ``device'' 
have the meaning given to such terms in section 201 of the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
                                 <all>
```