alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 28, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-70007

ROY LEE PIPPIN Plaintiff - Appellant

v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN; JOHN DOE, Warden, TDCJ-ID, Walls Unit; JOHN DOE, Executioner, TDCJ-ID, Walls Unit; RICK PERRY, Governor, State of Texas Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston

H007-0982

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-appellant Roy Lee Pippin is scheduled to be executed by the State of Texas on March 29, 2007. Pippin was convicted of murdering more than one person during the same criminal transaction and murdering one of the victims during the course of a kidnapping. Pippin was sentenced2

to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. Pippin v. State , No. 72,252 (Tex. Crim. App. May 21, 1997). Pippin unsuccessfully petitioned for state and federal habeas corpus relief. See generally Pippin v. Dretke , 434 F.3d 782 (5th Cir. 2005), cert denied , 127 S. Ct. 351 (2006). Pippin, acting pro se, filed an action in district court on March 23, 2007, challenging the combination of drugs used by the State of Texas to administer lethal injections. Pippin asserted that the drugs may paralyze but not produce unconsciousness, constituting cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed Pippin’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that Pippin was dilatory in raising his challenge to the drug combination used. Pippin v. Quarterman , No. H007-0982 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2007). We affirm the district court’s final judgment entered March 26, 2007, for essentially the reasons given in its Memorandum and Order. See Harris v. Johnson , 376 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2004). AFFIRMED. Pippin’s motion for a stay of execution is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Harvey
Judkowitz, 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
Photovoltaic Solar Cells, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A, for the quarter ended August
30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Photovoltaic Solar Cells, Inc.





Dated:
      February 17, 2010
              /s/ Harvey JudkowitzHarvey
      Judkowitz, Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael OXENDINE, a/k/a Hollywood, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6864.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 28, 2010.

Michael Oxendine, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Oxendine appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to file a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Oxendine,*No. 4:04-cr-00811-*820TLW-5 (D.S.C. May 26, 2010). 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.*
#### In the Matter of John Richard, Appellant, v Mary Batroney et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 28, 2011;

decided January 12, 2012

Reported below, 2011 NY Slip Op 77201(U); 2011 NY Slip Op 83848(U).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Patricia J. Curto, Appellant, v Peter P. Vasilion et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 1, 2010;

decided April 6, 2010

Motion for reargument etc. denied *[see*13 NY3d 716 (2010)].
# C_2020222EN.01001201.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 March 2020 — ClientEarth v European Commission

(Case C-612/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(1)(a), third indent, and (6) - Exceptions to the right of access - Protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Documents drawn up by the European Commission’s legal service concerning Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access)

(2020/C 222/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer and E. M. Raedts, advocaten, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---
Cit e as 2017 A r k . 133



## S UPREME COURT OF ARKANS AS

Nos. CR-92-1385 and CR-00-528 DON WILLIAM DAVIS APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered April 17, 2017

DISSENTING OPINION.

KAR EN R . BAKER , As s o ciat e J u st ice I dissent f rom t he m ajority’s decision t oday t o t ake the m at t e r as a case and st ay Davis’s execut ion. Davis’s m ent al com pet ency i s not at i ssue and t he U nit ed S t at es Suprem e Court ’s act ion in M

cW illiam s v. D unn , 634 F . A p p ’x 6 9 8 ( 1 1t h Cir. 2015) likely has no bearing on Davis’s case. The U nit ed St at es Suprem e Court c an ent er a st ay in Davis’s case if i t deem s it appropriat e. Accordingly, I dissent
. W O O D , J., joins.
# C_2018112EN.01003201.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/32

---

Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN)

(Case T-265/17) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark EXPRESSVPN - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for alteration - Single head of claim - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 112/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ExpressVPN Ltd (Glen Vine, Isle of Man) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 (Case R 1352/2016-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union No 1 265 562 of the figurative mark EXPRESSVPN.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | ExpressVPN Ltd is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ExpressVPN Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

1

---
1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3573

___________ William Patrick Johnson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. John Baldwin, IDOC Director; Sheryl * Lockwood, Eastern Asst. Dept. * [UNPUBLISHED] Director; Jerry Bartruff, Religious * Coordinator; Judy Morrison, Native * Consultant; Greg Ort, Deputy Warden; * Lowell Brandt, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 5, 2011 Filed: August 22, 2011

___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. William Patrick Johnson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful review, we conclude that the denial of substitute counsel was not an a buse of discretion, and that defendants were-2- entitled to summary judgment for the reasons the district court stated. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934


AND 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 GameStop
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, R. Richard Fontaine, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| |     |                                                                                                                                                             
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and                               
|
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.



| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ R. RICHARD FONTAINE                              
| |                                                      
| | R. Richard Fontaine                                  
| | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
    Officer
| | GameStop Corp.                                       
| | April 14, 2004                                       

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 the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29585-29586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Letters of Authorization To Take Marine Mammals

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

[[Page 29586]]


ACTION: Notice of issuance of Letters of Authorization to take marine 
mammals incidental to oil and gas industry activities.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972, as amended, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service implementing regulations [50 CFR 18.27(f)(3)], notice is hereby 
given that Letters of Authorization to take polar bears and Pacific 
walrus incidental to oil and gas industry exploration activities have 
been issued to the following company:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Company                        Activity                  Location                 Date issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP Exploration (Alaska)..........  Exploration..............  Liberty.................  April 30, 2001.
WesternGeco......................  Exploration..............  Beaufort Sea............  May 4, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contact: Mr. John W. Bridges at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Marine Mammals Management Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, 
Alaska 99503, (800) 362-5148 or (907) 786-3810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Letters of Authorization are issued in 
accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Rules and 
Regulations ``Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified 
Activities (65 FR 16828; March 30, 2000).''

    Dated: May 16, 2001.
David B. Allen,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 01-13592 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Elizabeth Mateo DEPENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5092-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 6, 2006.

Toni M. Mele, Assistant United States Attorney, (Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Appellee.

Darrell B. Fields, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: HomAMALYAL. KEARSE, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI and Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

*120SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Elizabeth Mateo Depena (“Depena”) was convicted, following a jury trial, of importing cocaine into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), and of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Depena was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, and also given five years of supervised release. Depena appeals from the judgment of conviction, claiming that the district court drew an adverse inference from her failure to testify at a suppression hearing, and, in that way, impermissibly burdened her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. She claims also that the district court shifted to her the government’s burden of proof with respect to her motion to suppress.

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the specific issues on appeal.

Even if the admission of evidence at trial involves a constitutional error, reversal is not required if the error was harmless. *See United States v. Ciak,*102 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir.1996). Here, Depena moved to suppress certain statements on the ground that they were obtained in violation of *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), because she did not understand the first *Miranda*warnings she had been given. In denying the motion, the court expressly found the testimony of the government’s witnesses credible; given that finding and the absence of any rebuttal testimony of any sort, we cannot see that the district court could reasonably have granted the motion to suppress. And the district court clearly knew that the burden of proving the voluntariness of the *Miranda*waiver rested with the government, *see United States v. Jaswal,*47 F.3d 539, 542 (2d Cir.1995), as Judge Trager’s pre-trial comments reveal. Under the circumstances, even assuming that the district court did, subsequently, draw an adverse inference from Depena’s silence at the suppression hearing, and assuming further that it was constitutional error to do so, we find no grounds for overturning her conviction, because any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have considered all of the arguments made by Depena and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL S SUTTON LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NOKIA CORPORATION and NOKIA INC., 

Defendant-Appellees. 

____________________ 

2010-1218 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in Case No. 07-CV-0203, Judge 

Leonard Davis. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

TIMOTHY W. JOHNSON, Matthews, Lawson & Johnson, 

PLLC, of Houston, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

With him on the brief were GUY E. MATTHEWS and C.

VERNON LAWSON. Of counsel was ANDY TINDEL and GUY 

G. FISHER, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, of Beaumont, 

Texas; and JIMMY M. NEGEM, Negem, Bickham & 

Worthington, of Tyler, Texas. 
DARYL L. JOSEFFER, King & Spalding, LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With 

him on the brief were PAUL D. CLEMENT and ADAM M.

CONRAD; and ALEXAS D. SKUCAS and MARK H. FRANCIS, of 

New York, New York. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, Circuit Judges and 

WHYTE, District Judge*). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 15, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk

 *

 Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, 

United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California, sitting by designation.
EXHIBIT
32.2














CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of Data Storage Consulting Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Neil Bernstein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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: May 19, 2009
                By:
                /s/ 
      Neil BernsteinNeil
      BernsteinChief
      Financial Officer
#### GBYE v. GBYE

No. 409P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 585

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1998.
**Exhibit 13.1**

** **

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

** **

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais—CEMIG(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DjalmaBastos de Morais, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   |   | /s/  Djalma Bastos de Morais |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:                             | Djalma Bastos de Morais |
|   |   | Title:                            | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date: June 19, 2009

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 19, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         4 pm to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Robert H. Stretch, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, MSC 7510, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6912.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 18, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-13192  Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M