alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert LOUGHLIN and John Loughlin, Appellants, v. Renny Tse-Haw LING and Chun-Sheng Wu, Appellees.

No. 2011-1432.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 6, 2011.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Renny Tse-Haw Ling and Chen-Sheng Wu (Ling) move to dismiss Robert Loughlin and John Loughlin’s (Loughlin) appeal. Loughlin oppose. Ling reply.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences declared an interference between Ling and Loughlin. During the preliminary motions phase of the proceedings, Loughlin moved for judgment against Ling, asserting that Ling had no authority to file the claims involved in the interference, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(2). The Board denied the motion. Subsequently, Loughlin requested an entry of adverse judgment, which the Board granted, so that they could appeal the Board’s denial of their motion for judgment against Ling. This appeal followed.

Ling argues that, because Loughlin conceded priority, they cannot now appeal the Board’s judgment in order to contest the denial of their motion for judgment against Ling. Loughlin asserts that the Board’s denial of the motion involved a threshold issue, which if decided in Loughlin’s favor would have ended the interference prior to adjudicating the merits of the interference.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is denied without prejudice to the parties presenting these arguments in their briefs. Loughlin’s brief is due within 30 days from the date of filing of this order.
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 on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James A. Clishem, President 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, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.



/s/ James A. ClishemJames A. ClishemPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2007
A92A1587.

#### CHAMPION v. SOUTHERN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

(423 SE2d 733)

Decided September 11, 1992

Reconsideration denied September 28, 1992

*Berlin & Hodges, Robert A. Berlin, Charles E. Johnson III,*for appellant.

*Jones, Cork & Miller, Brandon A. Oren, Rufus D. Sams III,*for appellee.

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This is the second appearance of this action on an insurance policy before this Court. In *Champion v. Southern Gen. Ins. Co.,*198 Ga. App. 129 (401 SE2d 36), a declaratory judgment action, this Court held that a genuine issue of material fact remained, whether the prejudice plaintiff experienced as a result of its failure to receive notification of defendant’s suit against Wood, plaintiff’s insured, until after default judgment had been entered may be eliminated by defendant’s offer to open the default judgment. Following the previous decision, the case was submitted to the superior court on opposing motions for summary judgment. Defendant Champion again appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Southern General Insurance Company. *Held:*

Upon remand to the superior court following the earlier appeal, plaintiff presented evidence in support of its new motion for summary judgment, that no motion or other proceeding attacking the judgment had been filed by defendant and that the three-year period for the filing of a motion to set aside had passed. Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to the judgment in its favor because now the judgment against Wood cannot be set aside. However, we note that there was also no action implementing the offer in *Home Indem. Co. v. Walker,*273 A2d 429, 430 (CA Md. 1971), the Maryland case from which we derived our reasoning in the earlier appeal. The onus of failing to accept the offer to open the judgment while such is a viable option must fall on the offeree. Substantially, the same issue as identified in the second division of our previous opinion remains for resolution, although the issue might now be stated in the past tense. *Champion v. Southern Gen. Ins. Co.,*198 Ga. App. 129, 132 (2), supra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Sognier, C. J., and Cooper, J., 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 Annual Report of USIP.Com,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Craig  Burton,
President  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 to the
best of 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Craig Burton
----------------
Craig Burton
President, USIP.Com, Inc.
March 24, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Nathanael V. Lentz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Verticalnet, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify to my knowledge
that:



| | (1) | The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ NATHANAEL V. LENTZNathanael V. LentzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 14, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Verticalnet,
Inc. and will be retained by Verticalnet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
- How To Appeal 
    - Court Forms  and Fees        - Court Forms
      - Fee Schedule
      - Filing Fee 
    - Court Rules and Procedures        - Rules of Practice  and Procedure
      - Procedural Requirements for Staff Conferences
      - Internal Operating Procedures
      - Rules of Admission  and Practice
      - Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability
      - E-Filing Rules
      - Court Process
      - Court Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Court Rules 
    - Information About Practitioners        - Search List of Practitioners
      - Disciplinary Action
      - Key Points in Finding a Representative
      - Compendium of Disciplinary Grievances 
    - Orders and Opinions        - Miscellaneous Orders
      - Ceremonial Orders
      - Opinions and Full Court Orders
      - Search Decisions and Opinions
      - Recent Decisions / Opinions
      - Case Archives 
    - Active Panel Cases 
    - Stayed Cases 
    - Class Action Cases 
    - Electronic Filing 
    - Docket Search 
    - Oral Arguments        - Schedule
      - Oral Arguments via YouTube Live
      - Audio/Video
      - Oral Argument Educational Outreach 

# Recent Decisions and Precedential Opinions

      -    All Decisions 
      -    Precedential Opinions 

----

USCAVC 16thJudicial ConferenceSeptember 19-20, 2024

Watch CAVC Oral Arguments on YouTube

Changes to Court Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability - EffectiveJanuary 10, 2024

In the News: Articles

----
EXHIBIT A

Case 4:23-cv-01892-JST Document 112-1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 2
Ahmed v. DHS Public Status Report

Table 1: Class Member Asylum Data

Date Range of Data: 2021-07-31 to 2023-12-28

Date Captured as of: 2023-12-28 

Report Published as of: 2024-01-11

Reporting Requirement Number Percent

(i) the total number of Class Member asylum applications received: 20,122 n/a

(ii) the total number of Class Member asylum applications adjudicated: 12,479 n/a

(iii) the total number of Class Member asylum applications that have been granted: 12,122 n/a

(iv) the total number of Class Member asylum applications that have been denied: 26 n/a

(v) the total number of Class Member asylum applications that have been administratively

closed: 331 n/a

(vi) the total number of Class Member asylum applications that have been referred to

immigration court for defensive removal proceedings: 0 n/a

(vii) the total number and percentage of Class Member asylum applications that are pending: 7,643 38.0

(viii) the total number of Class Member asylum applications that have been pending more than

150 days, and the total percentage compared to overall Class Member asylum applications: 6,177 30.7

(ix) For adjudicated Class Member asylum applications, the average adjudication time (in days)

from filing to completion: 308 n/a

(x) For pending Class Member asylum applications, the average number of days from filing that

those cases have been pending: 303 n/a

Table 1 Notes:

1) The report reflects the most up-to-date data available at the time the system was queried.

2) Adjudicated is defined as the date a grant, denial or referral is served upon the applicant or the date of the administrative

close. Reopened cases are excluded.

3) Processing time is represented by the elapsed number of calendar days between date of filing and date of decision service,

date of administrative close, or date of data extract if the application is still pending.

Parameters:

Form: I-589

Special Group Code: OAW

Data Source: eCISCOR GLOBAL / Asylum Division - IDEA Branch

Case 4:23-cv-01892-JST Document 112-1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT   13.1**

**HOLMES  FINANCING (NO. 6) PLC  04359738**

**ABBEY  NATIONAL HOUSE  2 TRITON SQUARE, REGENTS PLACE  LONDON NW1 3AN**

**Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States  Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter  63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of the servicer  does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form    20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Form 20-F”) of    Holmes Financing (No. 6) PLC (the “Company”)    fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents,    in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

| Dated:      June 30, 2005 | /s/ Chris FieldingChris Fielding |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------|

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. 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Patrick G. Blanchard, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8618 and 34-52492]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 15, 2007                     /s/ Patrick G. Blanchard   Patrick G. Blanchard   President and Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130108 & (21) (22) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ANTONIO L. THOMAS and ANTONIO Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, L. THOMAS ASSOCIATED, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 130108 

 COA: 266779 
 Wayne CC: 02-220633-CZ

LA-VAN HAWKINS and 

URBAN CITY FOODS, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

MELVIN BUTCH HOLLOWELL, 

Receiver-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The motion for stay of trial court proceedings is also GRANTED, and proceeds of the 

sale of the Sweet Georgia Brown restaurant shall not be distributed during the pendency 

of the stay. The application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2005 order of the Court 

of Appeals remains under consideration. 

s1221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

December 21, 2005 

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7483 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRETT A. RODMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:06-CR-00170-PMD)

Submitted: June 13, 2007 Decided: July 11, 2007

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States

Attorney, Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brett A. Rodman was involuntarily committed to the

custody of the Attorney General, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)

(2000), based on a finding by the district court that he is

incompetent to stand trial on federal criminal charges. We affirm.

We review a district court’s determination that a

criminal defendant is competent to stand trial for clear error.

United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992); United

States v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002).

As recognized by the district court, § 4241(d) establishes a

two-part disjunctive test of competency: “If . . . the [district]

court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant

is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering

him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to

understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against

him or to assist properly in his defense, the court shall commit

the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General.”

In the Commitment Order, the district court found that

Rodman understood the nature of the proceedings against him, but

also found that Rodman’s “paranoia and delusional beliefs caused by

bipolar type schizoaffective disorder are so pervasive and

consuming as to make him incompetent to assist in his own defense.”

The court based its conclusion on the testimony of Dr. Robert

Lucking, Rodman’s primary evaluator, and Rodman’s own testimony.
- 3 -

We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Rodman’s

competency hearing, and we find no error, let alone clear error, in

the district court’s Commitment Order finding Rodman incompetent

and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General.

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00179-CR

JOEMAR JACKSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Joemar Jackson attempts to appeal from the denial of his pro se 

motion for use of the trial record on a loan basis. On May 24, 2011, we notified 

Jackson of our concern that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and we 

informed him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal files with 

the court, on or before June 3, 2011, a response showing grounds for continuing 

the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

App. P. 44.3. We have received no response. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Self v. State, 122 

S.W.3d 294, 294–95 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for 

want of jurisdiction where trial court denied appellant’s request for free copy of 

trial court’s records to prosecute post-conviction writ of habeas corpus); Crear v. 

State, No. 14-05-00222-CR, 2005 WL 914123, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] Apr. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal of denial of pro se motion to obtain 

records and request for loan of trial records).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 28, 2011
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5755 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide authority to restrict 

competition to businesses within States that fund projects at military 

installations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2010 

Mr. COURTNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide authority 

to restrict competition to businesses within States that 

fund projects at military installations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT COMPETITION TO 

4 BUSINESSES WITHIN STATES THAT FUND 

5 PROJECTS AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. 

6 Section 2304(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph 

9 (6); 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5755 IH

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of para2 graph (7) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(8) the contract is for a military construction 

6 project at a military installation in a State, the 

7 State provided all funding for the project, and the 

8 head of the agency— 

9 ‘‘(A) determines that it is in the best inter10 est of the agency concerned to limit the sources 

11 from which it solicits bids or proposals to pro12 spective contractors that have a physical pres13 ence in the State that provided the funding; 

14 and 

15 ‘‘(B) notifies the congressional defense 

16 committees in writing of such determination not 

17 less than 30 days before the award of the con18 tract.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS