alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James T. LEGGETT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brent NEWTON; Seth Silverman, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-20432

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 7, 2010.

*411James T. Leggett, Houston, TX, pro se.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James T. Leggett appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) motion, which challenged the dismissal, as frivolous, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The district court noted that Leggett’s motion did not state any grounds that would entitle him to relief under Rule 60(b).

We do not have jurisdiction to review the correctness of the district court’s dismissal of the underlying § 1983 civil rights complaint, and Leggett is limited on appeal to a challenge of the district court’s decision to deny his Rule 60(b) motion. *See Barrs v. Sullivan,*906 F.2d 120, 121 (5th Cir.1990). Leggett, however, does not address the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and only presents arguments in support of his underlying § 1983 civil rights complaint. Thus, Leggett has abandoned his only cognizable claim on appeal. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987) (holding that an appellant’s failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment). To the extent that Leggett raises new claims, we need not address those because this court does not generally consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Disc. Ctrs., Inc.,*200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir.2000).

Leggett is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Leggett is further cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 118.

#### Buie *v.*United States.

November 11, 1935.
Exhibit 32
 
 Certification of Periodic Financial Report
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of STRATTEC SECURITY CORPORATION (the "Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 27, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated: August 27, 2004   /s/ Harold M. Stratton II
 _______________________________
 Harold M. Stratton II,
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 Dated: August 27, 2004      /s/ Patrick J. Hansen
 _______________________________
 Patrick J. Hansen,
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13450]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1153; MM Docket No. 01-34; RM-10061]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Warsaw, Windsor, MO

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of D&H Media, permittee of 
Station KWKJ(FM), Warsaw, Missouri, reallots Channel 253A from Warsaw 
to Windsor, Missouri. Channel 253A is allotted at Windsor in compliance 
with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements, with 
respect to domestic allotments, without the imposition of a site 
restriction at coordinates 38-31-56 NL and 93-31-19 WL.

DATES: Effective June 18, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-34, adopted April 25, 2001, and 
released May 4, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 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

    Radio broadcasting.

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

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

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


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Missouri is 
amended by removing Channel 253A at Warsaw and add Windsor, Channel 
253A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-13450 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### David SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David NIEVES, Officer, Norwalk Police Department, Jeff P. Proudfoot, Officer, Norwalk Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.*

No. 08-5535-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 14, 2010.

David Simmons, pro se, S. Norwalk, CT, for Appellant.

M. Jeffrey Spahr Esq., Norwalk Corporation Counsel, Norwalk, CT, for Appel-lees.

PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, WALKER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the listing of the parties above.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Appellant David Simmons, proceeding *pro se,*appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, *J.)*granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment *de novo*and determines whether the district court properly concluded there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,*46 F.3d 196, 202-03 (2d Cir.1995). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” *Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,*475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having reviewed Appellant’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its opinion. We have considered all of Appel*76lant’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
---

**PROMISSORY NOTE**

|**$30,000 U.S.** | **Due Date: no specific terms of repayment**
|---------------- | --------------------------------------------

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, HERE ENTERPRISES, INC. (the “Borrower”), unconditionally promises to pay to the order of Mountain Equity LTD. (the “Lender”) the sum of $30,000 in United States of America funds, together with interest at the rate of 20% per annum, on the principal amount remaining unpaid, after as well as before demand or maturity or default, calculated on an annual basis (on the basis of a year of 365 days for the actual number of days elapsed) and payable on demand; PROVIDED that if the Borrower fails to pay on demand any payment of principal or interest on this note, then in such event the entire unpaid principal and all accrued and unpaid interest thereon shall become and be forthwith due and payable without presentment, notice, protest or demand or any kind (all of which are hereby expressly waived by the Borrower).

The Borrower hereby agrees that the proper law of this instrument is the law of the Province of British Columbia and that this instrument shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws thereof and the undersigned agrees that any legal suit, action or proceeding brought upon or arising out of or relating to this instrument may be instituted in the courts of such Province and the undersigned hereby accepts and irrevocably submits and attorns to the exclusive jurisdiction of the said courts and acknowledges their competence and agrees to be bound by any judgment thereof, provided that nothing herein shall limit the right of the Lender to bring proceedings against the Borrower elsewhere.

This Promissory Note is dated the 8th day of October 2008.

**HERE ENTERPRISES, INC.**

|Per: | /s/ Simon Au       | 
|---- | ------------------ | 
|     | Simon Au, Chairman | 





---
```

[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 54801]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19se06-27]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date:  11 a.m., Friday, October 20, 2006.

Place:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status:  Closed.

Matters To Be Considered:  Enforcement matters.

For Further Information Contact:  Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-7824 Filed 9-15-06; 3:37 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 129436(67) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices JODIE VEGA, Conservator of the Estate of JEFFREY HURLEY, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 129436 v COA: 253739 Berrien CC: 02-003976-NH LAKELAND HOSPITALS AT NILES AND ST. JOSEPH, INC., ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C. a nd BETH VANDERAH and MICHAEL SPEERS, Co-Personal Representatives of th e Estate of DAVID ALAN SPEERS, M.D., Deceased, Defendants-Appellees.

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by plaintiff- appellant for extension to February 7, 2007 of the time for filing her brief and append ix is considered and it is

GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 12, 2007

Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Application of
LedgerX LLC for
Registration as a Swap Execution Facility

ORDER OF REGISTRATION

LedgerX LLC (‘LedgerX”) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (‘““Commission” or “CFTC”), pursuant to Section 5h of the Commodity Exchange
Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3, and Commission Regulation 37.3(b), 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(b), an
application for registration as a swap execution facility, which includes submissions dated
January 13, 2017 through June 28, 2017. Having reviewed LedgerX’s application, the
Commission makes the following findings and rulings:

WHEREAS in addition to its application for registration as a swap execution facility,
LedgerX has applied for a registration to be a derivatives clearing organization; and

WHEREAS LedgerX has represented that it will not list an intended to be cleared swap
until it has a clearing agreement with a registered derivatives clearing organization and it will not
list a swap that is not intended to be cleared unless it revises its rulebook and other pertinent
registration materials to provide for the execution of uncleared swaps;

The Commission FINDS that LedgerX has demonstrated, as required by Section 5h of the
Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7b-3, that it complies with the provisions set forth in the Act, and the

Commission's regulations thereunder applicable to it, for registration as a swap execution


facility, and LedgerX has provided sufficient assurance that it will continue to comply with the
requirements of the Act and the Commission's regulations.

Therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Section 5h of the Act and Commission
Regulation 37.3(b)(6)(i), that LedgerX is granted registration as a swap execution facility,
subject to the terms and conditions specified herein:

(1) LedgerX shall comply with all representations and submissions made by LedgerX

in support of its application for registration as a swap execution facility, as shown in the

application record; including, but not limited to, its representations that it will not list an intended
to be cleared swap until it has a clearing agreement with a derivatives clearing organization
registered under Section 5b of the Act and it will not list a swap that is not intended to be cleared
until it submits to the Commission revisions of its rulebook and other pertinent registration
materials, pursuant to the provisions of Part 40 of the Commission’s regulations, to provide for
the execution of uncleared swaps; and

(2) LedgerX shall comply with all provisions of the Act and all requirements set forth

in the Commission’s regulations, as may be amended or adopted from time to time, that are

applicable to swap execution facilities.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on this 6th day of July, 2017.

By the Commission

TL \ Dbl)

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick
Secretary of the Commission
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corp. v. Greenlief

February 24, 1992

Case No. (Chancery) 124527

By Judge J. Howe Brown

This matter is before the Court on a petition for mandamus filed by the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation. After hearing oral argument, the Court took the matter under advisement to consider the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied.

A mandamus action generally consists of three elements:

(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy. *Early Used Cars, Inc. v. Province,*218 Va. 605, 609 (1977). The court finds that the first two elements have not been satisfactorily established in this case.

The Virginia Freedom of Information Act provides that all official records be open to inspection and copying by citizens of the Commonwealth. Code § 2.1-342(A). Certain records are excluded from the provisions of the Act, however, such as the records specified in Code § 58.1-3. *See*Code § 2.1-342(B)(22). The records referred to in Code § 58.1-3 concern information acquired by certain tax officials relating to the transactions, property, income or business of any person, firm or corporation. Code § 58.1-3 also exempts four classes of tax records from the scope of that code section, including matters required by law to be entered on any public assessment roll or book.

*141Although the information sought in the present action is part of the official records kept by the respondent, the information pertaining to the tax-exempt status of particular entities falls under the ambit of Code § 58.1-3 and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the FOIA. Moreover, petitioner has failed to establish to the court’s satisfaction that the information sought falls under any of the four exceptions to Code § 58.1-3. Therefore, petitioner has no clear legal right to the information.

Further, under the FOIA, public bodies are not required to create or prepare a particular requested record if it does not already exist. Code § 2.1-342(A). Public bodies may, but are not required to, abstract or summarize information from official records or convert an official record available in one form into another form at the request of the citizen. *Id.*With respect to this latter provision, note that there can be no mandamus to do a discretionary act. *Giles v. County Board of Supervisors,*222 Va. 379, 382 (1981). The respondent has testified that the information sought by the petitioner does not exist in the form requested. Thus, there is no legal duty for the respondent to either create a record or convert existing records into the form requested for a mandamus action.

For these reasons, the petition for mandamus is denied.
WRITERS’
GROUP FILM CORP.


1752 East
Avenue J  #266


Lancaster,
CA  93535


213-694-1888





EXHIBIT
32





Section
1350 Certification





As
Adopted Pursuant To


Section
906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002





Certification
of the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





In
connection with the Form 10-Q of Writers’ Group Film Corp. (the “Company”)
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant
to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code (18
U.S.C. 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 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.





February
15, 2010








Tal L.
Kapelner, President


Principal
Executive Officer





/s/
Ariella Kapelner


Ariella
Kapelner, Treasurer


Principal
Financial Officer





This
certification accompanying the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant 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 the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.





www.writersgroupfilmcorp.com*info@writersgroupfilmcorp.com
Exhibit (g)(15)

APPENDIX A

TO

CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

AND

EACH OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANIES

DATED AS OF March 24, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morris Duane BUCKLES, Claimant-Appellant, *268$15,010 in United States Currency, Defendant.

No. 09-35493.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., USBI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT,

Morris Duane Buckles, Anthony, TX, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Morris Duane Buckles appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss and its summary judgment in favor of the United States in the government’s civil forfeiture action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly denied Buckles’s motion to dismiss after re*269jecting his contentions that the civil forfeiture proceeding constituted double jeopardy and that the government was required to bring the forfeiture action during his criminal trial. *See United States v. Ursery,*518 U.S. 267, 292, 116 S.Ct. 2185, 185 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996) (“[Cjivil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); *United States v. Nava,*404 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.2005) (“The government may seek the forfeiture of property in either a civil or a criminal proceeding.”)

However, the district court granted summary judgment without giving Buckles fair notice of the requirements and possible consequences of a summary judgment motion, a requirement under *Rand v. Rowland,*154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). Therefore, we vacate summary judgment and remand. Upon remand, if the government again seeks summary judgment, the district court should consider *United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency,*16 F.3d 1051, 1063 (9th Cir.1994) (evidence which is the product of an illegal search or seizure must be excluded in the civil forfeiture hearing).

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14697]



[[Page 31646]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-395-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Technical Conference

June 6, 2001.
    In the Commission's order issued on May 31, 2001,\1\ the Commission 
directed that a technical conference be held to address issues raised 
by the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Northern Natural Gas Co., 95 FERC para. 61,315 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Tuesday, 
June 26, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., in a room to be designated, at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14697 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Federal Register: December 15, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 69059-69060]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de98-39]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, January 4, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.


[[Page 69060]]


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-33265 Filed 12-11-98; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----