alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. German Geovany SANCHEZ-VALLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40840

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent German Geovany Sanchez-Valle has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Sanchez-Valle has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 23





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements, (Form
S-8 No. 333-18495, 333-77473, 333-37426, 333-88528, 333-115925, 333-126074, and
333-134644) pertaining to the Stock Incentive Plans and Executive Nonqualified
Excess Plan of Aftermarket Technology Corp. of our reports dated February 27,
2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Aftermarket Technology Corp., and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Aftermarket Technology Corp., included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.








/s/ ERNST
& YOUNG LLP








Chicago,
Illinois


February
27, 2008
Order filed August 8, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00409-CV

____________

CASSIE LANDRUM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY LANDRUM, 

Appellants

V.

GENERAL SHELTERS OF TEXAS, LTD., ROBERT C. HANCOCK, 

INDIVIDUALLY, DAWN HANCOCK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND 

ROBERT C. HANCOCK AND DAWN HANCOCK D/B/A THREE 

ACES MINI STORAGE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 344th District Court

Chambers County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18DCV0253

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed January 22, 2019, which became 

final on order of severance signed February 11, 2019. Appellant timely filed a postjudgment motion. The notice of appeal was due May 13, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P.
2

26.1. Appellant, however, filed the notice of appeal on May 15, 2019, a date within 

15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is 

necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due 

date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a 

motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be 

implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation 

to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 

S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss 

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 5, 2019

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 18-2345

RISA STEGALL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 00178

Robert M. Dow, Jr.,

 Judge.

O R D E R

The opinion of this court issued on December 4, 2019, is amended as follows:

Page 3, “Fed. R. Evid. 59” should be “Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.”
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7769

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-6813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-94-17)

Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003
2

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie

Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

 Although Saunders did not file a notice of appeal from the

district court’s order denying his second motion for

reconsideration, we have jurisdiction to review the order because

his timely filed informal brief is the functional equivalent of a

notice of appeal. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992).

3

PER CURIAM:

Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motion to supplement a 1994 motion and denying

his motions for reconsideration.* We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See United States v. Saunders, No.

CR-94-17 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2002; May 1, 2003; May 30, 2003). 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
* 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50783 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LADON KENTRELL KING, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-00-CR-111-2

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ladon Kentrell King (“King”) appeals the sentencing following his jury conviction for possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. King argues that the district court erred in assessing a three level sentence enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b). This court reviews legal conclusions by the district court de novo , and the district court’s findings of fact are reviewedNo. 01-50783 -2- for clear error. See United States v. Ocana , 204 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. 2000). The sentence adjustment was not clearly erroneous because King’s actions of giving the gun to his co-defendant and instructing him to exit the vehicle with the gun caused a substantial risk of serious bodily injury when King’s co-defendant subsequently pointed the firearm at the officers.
See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b); see also United States v. OrtizGranados , 12 F.3d 39, 41-43 (5th Cir. 1994). For the foregoing reasons, King’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit (d)(131)

**SUB-ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

**between**

**FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY RESEARCH & ANALYSIS COMPANY**

**and**

**FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST ON BEHALF OF**
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ImmunoBiotics., Inc. (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  Vithal J.
Rajadhyaksha


certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
Registrant.




/s/ Vithal
      J. RajadhyakshaVithal
      J. Rajadhyaksha
                  Chief
      Financial Officer




August
14, 2009
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of January 15, 2001.

                    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18, 2001, at 11:00 a.m.                          ( print page 4047)    

Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    - Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
    - Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: the Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

Dated: January 12, 2001.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-1470  Filed 1-12-01; 11:38 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### Michael Mitaras, Appellant, v Pickman Realty Corp. et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. GG&M Donuts, Inc., Doing Business as Alpha Donuts, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[876 NYS2d 80]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the *828Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered September 25, 2007, which, upon a jury verdict, granted the separate motions of the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in his favor and for judgment as a matter of law, and dismissed the complaint and the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff allegedly fell into an opening in the floor of premises owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff Cameo Holding, LLC, managed by the defendant third-party plaintiff Pickman Realty Corp. (hereinafter together the defendants), and leased to plaintiff’s employer, the third-party defendant GG&M Donuts, Inc., *doing*business as Alpha Donuts (hereinafter Alpha). The opening, which led to the basement, was normally covered by a trap door. At trial, both the plaintiff and his expert testified that the door was safe to walk over when closed, and that the door only became unsafe when it was left in the open position. The defendants and Alpha separately moved pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and for judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court granted both motions. We affirm.

For a court to conclude, as a matter of law, that a jury verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it must first conclude that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” *(Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they were out-of-possession landlords that retained no control over the premises where the plaintiffs accident occurred, were not obligated to maintain or repair the premises, and did not violate a specific statutory provision *(see O’Connell v L.B. Realty Co.,*50 AD3d 752 [2008]; *Kramer v Ash Clothing,*213 AD2d 600 [1995]).

In light of the dismissal of the complaint, the third-party complaint also was properly dismissed *(see Daniel v Fleisher,*230 AD2d 763 [1996]). Mastro, J.P., Co vello, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ilight Technologies, Inc. v. Clutch City Sports & Entertainment, LP

Appellate case number: 01-12-00574-CV

Trial court case number: 0976645

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

This Court orders the Harris County District Clerk, or the court reporter if the exhibits are 

still in his or her possession, to send the original of the following exhibits, which were admitted 

at trial:

o Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, Report of Kurt Humphrey

o Plaintiff’s Exhibits 19, 20, and 21 Original Photos

o Defendant’s Exhibits 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 33, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 71, 

Original Photos

The Clerk of this Court is directed to cooperate with the district clerk and/or court 

reporter to provide for the safekeeping, transportation, and return of such exhibits. See TEX. R.

APP P. 34.6(g)(2).

The exhibits are due in this Court no later than May 24, 2013.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 10, 2013
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Nichols, State Tax Commissioner of North Dakota.

October 12, 1936.

*Mr. P. O. Sathre,*Attorney General of North Dakota, and *Mr. Charles A. Verret,*Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner.

*Messrs. F. G. Dorety*and *C. J. Murphy*for respondent.

The rule to show cause herein is discharged and the motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
#### The CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEAZER HOMES INVESTMENTS, LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 08-5967.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 8, 2010.

Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; SILER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

On February 4, 2010, this court filed an opinion affirming the judgment below. *See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Beazer Homes Investments, LLC,*594 F.3d 441 (6th Cir.2010). That opinion held that “unless and until the Indiana Supreme Court decides otherwise,” a standard commercial general liability (CGL) insurance contract does not provide coverage to the insured general contractor for water damage to the project in question caused by the faulty workmanship of the subcontractors. *Id.*at 451. At the time of our decision, however, the case of *Sheehan Construction Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.*was pending before the Indiana Supreme Court, a case addressing precisely the same question of Indiana insurance law. We therefore filed an Order on March 15, 2010 that stayed the mandate in this case “until the Indiana Supreme Court issues a decision” in *Sheehan.*

On September 30, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court, in a 3 to 2 decision, held that a standard CGL insurance contract *does*cover water damage to property caused by the faulty workmanship of a subcontractor, unless the insured intended for the work to be faulty. *See Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.,*935 N.E.2d 160 (Ind.2010). Because this is a diversity-of-citizenship case controlled by Indiana law, and because the mandate was specifically stayed until Sheehan was decided, we must now set aside our prior ruling and remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of *Sheehan. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins,*304 U.S. 64, 78-80, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); *Huddleston v. Dwyer,*322 U.S. 232, 236, 64 S.Ct. 1015, 88 L.Ed. 1246 (1944).

*50IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that our prior opinion filed on February 4, 2010 is hereby VACATED, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of *Sheehan.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Manuel CAMARENA HERNANDEZ, also known as Jorge Camarena, also known as Jorge Camarena Hernandez, also known as Jorge Manuel Camarena-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20207

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jorge Manuel Camarena Hernandez, Pecos, TX, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:09-CR-581-l.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

*12PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Manuel Camarena Hernandez (Camarena) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Camarena has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit
32.1







Certification






The
undersigned certifies for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code, in his capacity as the chief executive officer of NORTH
HORIZON, INC. (“NORTH HORIZON”) that to his knowledge, the Form 10-Q of NORTH
HORIZON with financial statements for the quarter ended March 31,
2008, fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operation of NORTH HORIZON.






Date: April
      24, 2008/s/
      Wallace BoyackWallace
      BoyackChief
      Executive Officer
---

EXHIBIT 32.1 Section 1350 Certification of the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the annual report of Viscount Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2007 (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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



|Dated: March 30, 2007 | /s/ Stephen Pineau                         
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                      | Stephen Pineau                             
|                      | President and Chief Executive
      Officer
|                      |                                            
|Dated: March 30, 2007 | /s/ Les Fong                               
|                      | Les Fong                                   
|                      | Chief Financial Officer                    

---
* 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 01-31427

_____________________ WANDA M MARKS Plaintiff - Appellant
v. SHAW CONSTRUCTORS Defendant - Appellee

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 00-CV-3203-K

_________________________________________________________________ September 4, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 47.6.
EXHIBIT
32.1








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Teen Education Group,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter  ending September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, Robert L.  Wilson,  President
of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as
adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that, to my
knowledge:





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





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








Date:
March 30, 2010











By: /s/
ROBERT L. WILSON


___________________________


Robert L.
Wilson


President


(Principal
Executive Officer),


and
Director