alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 11, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TYRONE JERMAINE ROGE RS , Appellant
NO. 14

- 12

- 00111

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this deci sion certified below for observance.
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

      I, D. Beatty D'Alessandro, Senior Vice President and Principal Financial
Officer of Graybar Electric Company, Inc. ("the Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      (1)   The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
            ended December 31, 2006 (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/ D. Beatty D'Alessandro
--------------------------
D. Beatty D'Alessandro
Senior Vice President and Principal Financial Officer

March 14, 2007
Case 1:07-cv-05341-AKH Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05341-AKH Document 6 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-31073

Summary Calendar

KEVIN J. MUTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PAM HEARN; TAMMY POOLE; JOEL WILLIAMS; MICHELLE NORRIS; 

JAMES LEBLANC; JERRY GOODWIN,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:16-CV-893

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin J. Muth, Louisiana prisoner # 631935, appeals the dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. He 

also moves for document production. In his complaint, Muth alleged that the 

defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 

Specifically, he asserted that prison officials ignored medical issues, stemming 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-31073 Document: 00514220180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2017
No. 16-31073

2

from his diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and other medical conditions. He 

re-urges those challenges on appeal.

Muth’s arguments are unavailing. Even if the assertions in his 

complaint are true, his contentions effectively amount to a disagreement with 

the treatment and care provided and do not amount to a constitutional 

violation. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); see Gobert 

v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346, 349 n.32 (5th Cir. 2006); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 

989 F.2d 191, 194-95 (5th Cir. 1993). To the extent that Muth is arguing, with 

the benefit of liberal construction, that prison officials sent him to 

administrative segregation in retaliation for his medical requests, his 

conclusional allegations do not show any retaliatory motive from prison 

officials or but-for causation. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 

1995). Accordingly, the dismissal of Muth’s § 1983 action is AFFIRMED. His 

motion for document production is DENIED AS MOOT.

Our affirmance and the district court’s dismissal count as a single strike 

under § 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 

(5th Cir. 1996). Muth is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will 

not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal unless 

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 Case: 16-31073 Document: 00514220180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2017
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZClear

Clear All

-  FLTCM. JOHN PERRYMANFLEET MASTER CHIEF, U.S. Fleet Forces Command 

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00214

- CV

Trinidad Rivera
v. Port Arthur Independent School District, Johnny Brown, Barbara Polk, and Jermaine Cooper

On a ppeal from the 136th District Court of Jefferson County , Texas

Trial Cause No. D

- 189,258

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged
against appe llant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
April 21, 2016.
Exhibit 99.4  BMCBMC Industries, Inc.One
  Meridian Crossings, Suite 850Minneapolis,
  MN 55423Website:  www.bmcind.comNEWS RELEASE  CONTACT:
  INVESTOR RELATIONS
  (NYSE:  BMC)(952) 851-6000
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BMC INDUSTRIES ANNOUNCES QUARTERLY DIVIDEND February
15, 2001 – Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA  On February 14, 2001, BMC
Industries, Inc.s Board of Directors approved a continuation of its quarterly
cash dividend of $.015 per share. Shareholders
of record as of March 21, 2001 will receive a dividend of $.015 for each share
owned on that date, to be paid on April 4, 2001. BMC
Industries, Inc., through its Vision-Ease subsidiary, is a leading designer,
manufacturer and distributor of polycarbonate, glass and hard-resin plastic eyewear
lenses.  BMC, through its Buckbee-Mears
division, also manufactures precision imaged products such as aperture masks
and photo-etched metal and electroformed parts.  BMC is the only North American manufacturer of aperture masks,
which are used in color television and computer monitor picture tubes.  BMCs common stock is traded on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol BMC. 
For more information about BMC Industries, Inc., visit the Companys
website:  www.bmcind.com.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 842 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States Courthouse to be constructed 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United 

States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 842 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States Courthouse to be constructed at 

3 the site bounded on the north by Court Street, on the west 

4 by West Street, on the south by South Street, and on the 

5 east by President Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United 

7 States Courthouse’’. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the court11 house referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref12 erence to the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 842 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States Courthouse to be 

Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. constructed in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 4.6

















                                     -64-
<PAGE>   2


                              AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
                              -----------------------------

         This Amendment to the Credit Agreement is executed as of this 28th day 
of February, between Chemi-Trol Chemical Co., an Ohio Corporation ("Borrower") 
and The Fifth Third Bank of Northwestern Ohio, N.A. ("Bank").

         The parties executed an Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated 
as of May 2, 1996, ("the Credit Agreement") whereby Bank agreed to make 
Revolving Loans to Borrower up to an amount of fifteen million dollars 
($15,000,000) through May 1, 1997.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the parties agreement to amend the
Credit Agreement, the premises and covenants herein, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the
parties agree to amend the Credit Agreement as follows:

         1.       Section 5.11, FINANCIAL LEVELS AND RATIOS, of the credit
                  agreement is hereby amended to read, Borrower shall maintain
                  and end each fiscal year with the following financial levels
                  and ratios; (a) Debt to Worth not to exceed 1.8:1; Minimum
                  Tangible Net Worth of not less than $18,500,000, Working
                  Capital of not less than $13,000,000 after reducing current
                  liabilities by the balloon payment, associated with Mortgage
                  Note #756086-52019 due October 1, 1997; and a Current Ratio
                  adjusted for the balloon payment associated with Mortgage Note
                  #756086-52019 due October 1, 1997, of not less than 1.5:1.

         Except as specifically amended herein, all the terms and provisions of
the Credit Agreement shall remain in full force and in effect through the
termination date.

         Executed as of the date first written above.


CHEMI-TROL CHEMICALS CO.              FIFTH THIRD BANK OF
                                      NORTHWESTERN OHIO, N.A.
                                      
By: /s/ Robert W. Woolf, President    By: /s/ Jeffrey C. Shrader, Vice President
    ------------------------------        --------------------------------------
                                                         
                                                         
By: /s/ Kevin D. Lauck, Secretary                                         
    ------------------------------                        
                                                






                                     -65-
#                                                                         Navy to Deploy SDB-II Smart Weapon Aboard F/A-18 Aircraft                                                                    

##### by Precision Strike Weapons Program Office

10 April 2024

                The Navy is set to field the Small Diameter Bomb Increment II on the F/A-18E/F after declaring Early Operational Capability (EOC) in October.            

                Navy to Deploy SDB-II Smart Weapon Aboard F/A-18 Aircraft            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: U.S. Navy Photo

VIRIN: 190122-N-UZ648-331

*From the Precision Strike Weapons Program Office.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        76,480
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     1,796,458
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    12,992,488
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      12,744,562
<LOANS>                                   28,287,964
<ALLOWANCE>                                  100,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            45,356,422
<DEPOSITS>                                31,911,151
<SHORT-TERM>                               2,635,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          180,332
<LONG-TERM>                                5,740,195
<COMMON>                                       3,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                 4,886,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            45,356,422
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            1,665,493
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            642,868
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              74,476
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                           2,382,837
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         1,167,046
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,507,596
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        875,241
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  9,920
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              780,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              194,312
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   137,018
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 137,018
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  2.61
<LOANS-NON>                                   35,368
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             104,735
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 13,837
<RECOVERIES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            100,818
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         100,818
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 52009PC0307 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52009PC0307

**Commission Opinion pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council Common Position regarding the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast) amending the proposal of the Commission by virtue of Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty /* COM/2009/0307 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 22.6.2009

COM(2009) 307 final

2007/0097/COD

COMMISSION OPINION pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council Common Position regarding the proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast)

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION by virtue of Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty

COMMISSION OPINIONpursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treatyon the European Parliament's amendmentsto the Council Common Position regarding theproposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast)

1. Introduction

Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty requires the Commission to deliver an opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second reading. The Commission's opinion on the amendments proposed by Parliament is set out below.

2. Background

Date on which the proposal was sent to the European Parliament and to the Council: (document COM(2007) 264 final – 2007/0097/COD): | 23 May 2007 |

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: | 26 September 2007 |

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: | 5 June 2008 |

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: | 13 June 2008 |

Date of adoption of the common position: | 9 January 2009 |

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, second reading | 23 April 2009 |

3. Aim of the proposal

The objective of the proposal adopted by the Commission on 23 May 2007 is to establish common rules for access to the market for coach and bus services. The proposal replaces two Regulations currently applicable. One of the main objectives is to simplify the authorisation procedure for regular international passenger transport services.

4. Opinion of the Commission on the amendments by the European Parliament

After several months of negotiations under the Czech Presidency, the Parliament and the Council agreed on a compromise at second reading, in particular concerning the introduction of a new twelve-day rule. The Commission can accept the compromise amendments adopted by the European Parliament after the second reading to confirm this agreement.

5. Conclusion

By virtue of Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission will amend its proposal in accordance with the above.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00284-CV

Willie Jackson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

From the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (1271968D)

June 5, 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
**Stewards of the Sea Menu**

                    - Stewards of the Sea Home
                    - About the Program and Exhibit
                    - Press Room                        - News
                      - Videos
                      - Photos
                    - Meet Stewie — the Navy's Environmental Mascot
                    - Fleet Installations and Environmental

**Marine Mammal Research**

Over the last decade, the Navy has sponsored over $300 million dollars of marine species study worldwide. The Navy's in-house team of marine scientists collaborates with some of the world's top universities, research institutions, and independent researchers to foster innovation and scientific excellence in the field of marine species research, monitoring, and effects analysis. 

Project areas include basic research and exploratory development by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Marine Mammal Science and Technology program, applied research conducted through the Navy's Living Marine Resources program, and monitoring work conducted in support of U.S. Navy military readiness activities. Because the Navy strives to incorporate the most accurate and reliable data and information into its environmental analyses and planning documents, all researchers are encouraged to have their work peer reviewed and published.The Navy's marine species monitoring programs are centered on the following goals: 
                        -  Better understand marine species distribution and location of important habitat areas 
                        -  Refine methods used to detect and monitor marine species before and during training activities 
                        -  Add to the understanding of the effects of underwater sound on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and birds 
                        -  Develop improved tools to model and estimate potential effects of underwater sound 
                        -  Develop new programs to safeguard marine protected species 

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-04509-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 9 of 9
#### Todd Supply, Inc., Appellant, v Ronald Hodgkiss, Respondent.

— Weiss, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Duskas, J.), entered October 17, 1986 in St. Lawrence County, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a Sheriff’s sale of real property.

In October 1984, plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant for $3,596.79, which judgment was duly docketed in the office of the St. Lawrence County Clerk. Thereafter, plaintiff delivered a real property execution to the St. Lawrence County Sheriff for the sale of a 55-acre parcel of land owned by defendant. Plaintiff was the sole bidder and purchased the parcel at sale, subject to an existing mortgage, and on August 2, 1985 received a deed to the property from the Sheriff. Thereafter, plaintiff discovered that the Sheriff failed to give defendant notice of the sale in accord with CPLR 5236 (c), which provision requires service pursuant to CPLR 308. It appears that the Sheriff simply provided service by registered mail, return receipt requested. By order to show cause dated September 3, 1986, plaintiff moved to set aside the sale for lack of proper notice to defendant. In the interim, as stated in plaintiff’s brief on this appeal, the mortgagee bank completed a foreclosure on the property during the summer of 1986 and a minimal deficiency remained. Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding that the defective notice did not compromise the title to the parcel since no objections were raised within one year of the sale (CPLR 2003). The court *1007further noted that plaintiffs title was protected by CPLR 5236 (c), which provides that a defect in notice does not affect the title of one who purchases without notice of the defect.

We affirm. There is no question that plaintiff was entitled to receive marketable title to the parcel *(see, Bolla v Blaugrund,*14 AD2d 417, 419). But as Supreme Court aptly observed, a challenge to the sale premised on a defective notice is foreclosed one year after the date of the sale (CPLR 2003; *see, Guardian Loan Co. v Early,*47 NY2d 515, 520; *Shaw v Russell,*95 AD2d 977, *affd*60 NY2d 922; *Levine v Berlin,*46 AD2d 902, 903; *Bolla v Blaugrund, supra,*at 419; *see also,*2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 2003.02). CPLR 5236 (c) further protects plaintiff, for although plaintiff acknowledges receiving the proof of notice from the Sheriff (CPLR 5236 [f]), plaintiff has averred that the defect in notice was not discovered until well after the sale *(see, May v Finnerty,*104 Misc 2d 450, 451). Nor has defendant raised any objections warranting the court to exercise its inherent equitable power to vacate the sale *(see, Guardian Loan Co. v Early, supra,*at 520-521). In sum, plaintiff received marketable title via the Sheriff’s deed and Supreme Court properly refused to vacate the sale.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.