alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eileen VENABLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REED ELSEVIER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-4471.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2010.

Eileen Venable, Centreville, VA, pro se.

Michael J. DiMattia (Philip A. Goldstein, on the brief), McGuireWoods LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.1

1

. The Honorable Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Eileen Venable (“plaintiff’), an attorney appearing *pro se,*appeals a grant of summary judgment for defendant-appellee Reed Elsevier, Inc. (“defendant”) in an action alleging discrimination in employment and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.*and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action.

We review an order granting summary judgment *de novo,*drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. *See, e.g., Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp.,*582 F.3d 268, 274 (2d Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2).

In its careful and well-reasoned order of March 6, 2009, *Venable v. Reed Elsevier, Inc.,*No. 04-CV-3532 (BSJ), 2009 WL 585865 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.6, 2009), the District Court properly dismissed all of plaintiffs claims. We affirm the judgment disposing of all claims for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court.

*CONCLUSION*

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
#### Tony COLIDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-1374.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

John Flock, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Tony Colida, Quebec, Canada, pro se.

Before LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. moves to dismiss Tony Colida’s appeal as frivolous and also moves for sanctions.

Colida sued Sony Ericsson alleging infringement of his design patent. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Coli-da’s complaint as barred by res judicata because he had lost in two previous patent infringement cases involving Sony Ericsson that were essentially the same design as the Sony Ericsson product currently at issue. Colida appeals.

We note that on at least two previous occasions, we have determined that Colida’s appeals involving his design patent were frivolous as filed. *See Colida v. Sharp Elec. Corp.,*125 Fed.Appx. 993 (Fed.Cir.2005); *Colida v. Sanyo N. Am. Corp.,*— Fed.Appx. -, 2004 WL 2853034 (Fed.Cir.2004).

An appeal is frivolous when an appellant grounds his appeal on arguments or issues that are “beyond the reasonable contemplation of fair-minded people.” *Abbs v. Principi,*237 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2001). Moreover, an appeal as to which *579“no basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is even arguably shown” is frivolous. *State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc.,*948 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1991). Such an appeal unnecessarily wastes the limited resources of the court as well as those of the appellee. *Id.*

When an appellant is proceeding in for-ma pauperis, as Colida is in this appeal, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... is frivolous.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, Colida’s brief fails to provide any support for why the district court might have erred in dismissing his complaint. In response to the questions whether the district court erred, Colida responds with “JURIS-PRU-DENCE.” No basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is arguably shown, and the appeal is frivolous. Although we decline to award sanctions in this appeal, we award Sony Ericsson its costs pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 39(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1).

Accordingly,

It Is ORDERED That-.

(1) Sony Ericsson’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Sony Ericsson’s motion for sanctions is denied.

(3)Costs are awarded to Sony Ericsson.
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/A of Great Spirits, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas Willis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:  December 17, 2010





By:
/s/ Thomas WillisThomas Willis

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer





This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Great Spirits, Inc. and will be retained by Great Spirits, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-1146 of The L.L. Knickerbocker Co. Inc. on Form S-8 and in Registration
Statements No. 333-15185, No. 333-37101 and No. 333-59169 on Form S-3 of our
report, which contains an explanatory paragraph regarding substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, dated March 31,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The L.L. Knickerbocker Co.,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Costa Mesa, California
April 14, 1999



                                       59
|   |        |   |   |   |   | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY W FUND, LLC                    |
|--------|-------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | May 6, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |        |   | Name:  |   |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |        |   | Title: |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |        |   |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | May 6, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |        |   | Name:  |   |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |        |   | Title: |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |        |   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |        |   |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13712]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1262, MM Docket No. 01-51, RM-10007]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Lima, OH

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Lima Communications 
Corporation, licensee of station WLIO(TV), substitutes DTV channel 8 
for DTV channel 20 at Lima, Ohio. See 66 FR 12749, February 28, 2001. 
DTV channel 8 can be allotted to Lima in compliance with the principle 
community coverage requirements of section 73.625(a) at reference 
coordinates (40-44-54 N. and 84-07-55 W.) with a power of 30.0, HAAT of 
165 meters and with a DTV service population of 958 thousand. Since the 
community of Lima is located within 400 kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian 
border, concurrence by the Canadian government has been obtained for 
this allotment. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective July 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-51, adopted May 23, 2001, and 
released May 25, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television, Digital television broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.622  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments 
under Ohio, is amended by removing DTV channel 20 and adding DTV 
channel 8 at Lima.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-13712 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
#### Jaime GARCIA; Elvira Garcia, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald D. KIRSTIEN, O’Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Harvey Rothstein, O’Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Randy Habeck, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-1549.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2006.

Decided: June 7, 2006.

David F. Albright, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Craig David Roswell, Matthew A. Swartz, Niles, Barton *&*Wilmer, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Patrick John Kearney, Selzer, Gurvitch, Rabin & Obency, Chtd., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jaime and Elvira Garcia appeal from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. *See Garcia v. Kirstien,*No. CA-01-103BEL-1 (D. Md. filed Sept. 30, 2004 & entered Oct. 1, 2004; filed Apr. 8, 2005 & entered Apr. 11, 2005). 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.*
EXHIBIT 32

| |  |  |  | CERTIFICATION | OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 | 
| |  |  |  | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ouvo, Inc. (Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Kent Carasquero, chief executive officer and chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) |  | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by this Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 28, 2006

/s/ Kent Carasquero

Kent Carasquero

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 99.10**

** **

**DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON**

 

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

 

SUITE 800 EAST

 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244

 

February 17, 2011

 

 

 

Encana Corporation

1800, 855-2nd Street SW

Calgary, Alberta T2P 2S5

 

We hereby consent to the use of the name DeGolyer and MacNaughton and reference to our name and our “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2010 on Certain Properties owned by Encana Oil and Gas USA Inc. SEC Case” (our Report) evaluating a portion of Encana Corporation’s petroleum and natural gas reserves as of December 31, 2010, and the information contained in our Report, as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) Encana Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 40-F, (ii) Encana Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-150453), (iii) Encana Corporation’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-124218, 333-85598 and 333-140856); and (iv) Encana Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form F-9 (File No. 333-165626), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

 

|   |   | Very truly yours                          |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                      |
|   |   | /s/ DeGolyer and   MacNaughton            |
|   |   |                                      |
|   |   | DeGolyer and   MacNaughton                |
|   |   | Texas Registered   Engineering Firm F-716 |

 

----
EXHIBIT 13.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*
  
    
    the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
  /s/ Louis Gries

Louis GriesChief Executive Officer/s/ Russell Chenu

Russell ChenuChief Financial Officer
 
 *
    
    The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit pursuant to the rules of Form 20-F
and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, accordingly, is not being filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Form 20-F and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 20-F, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing).
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 Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Riehl, Chief Executive Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




Date: March 29, 2010





/s/ Peter RiehlPeter RiehlPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



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), each of the undersigned officers of Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                        |     |                        
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                        |     |                        
|Date September 21, 2007 | By: | /s/ Peter Riehl        
|                        |     | Name: Peter Riehl      
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |     |                        





|                        |     |                        
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                        |     |                        
|Date September 21, 2007 | By: | /s/ Janice Clarke      
|                        |     | Name: Janice Clarke    
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |     |
#### 1440 Empire Boulevard Development Corp., Respondent, v Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 857] —

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered September 27, 2007. The order, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ. *(See*19 Misc 3d 161 (2007).]
#### George A. MCKRAY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15121.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

George A. McKray, Law Office of George A. McKray, Alameda, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas A. Blake, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of The California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellants’ request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

George A. McKray and Anthony Lam-perti appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of their federal constitutional rights in connection with unpublished decisions by the California Courts of Appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (reviewing dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *Schmier v. U.S. Ct. of App. for the Ninth Cir.,*279 F.3d 817, 820 (9th Cir.2002) (reviewing questions of standing). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as barred by the *Roolcer-Feldman*doctrine the claims that sought review and remand of final California Courts of Appeal decisions. *See Noel,*341 F.3d at 1164 (“If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, *Rooker-Feldman*bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.”).

*602The district court properly dismissed for lack of standing the remaining claims challenging a court rule regarding unpublished decisions. *See Schmier,*279 F.3d at 820-21 (stating that a plaintiff must allege an injury capable of redress to establish standing).

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellants’ request to submit further briefing is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Chateau Communities, Inc. or CP Limited Partnership on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-
84616 and 333-28583) and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-36323, 333-28703, 333-4544,
333-4544-01, 333-43981, 333-74399, and 333-38307) of our report dated February
8, 2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Chateau Communities, Inc. and CP Limited Partnership,
respectively, as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1999, which reports are included in the Annual
Reports on Form 10-K, respectively.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Denver, CO
March 29, 2000