alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 2, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1342 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-60416 CV -PCH TROPICAL AVIATION GROUND SERVICES, INC ., A Flo rid a co rp or at io n, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us KENNET H JENNE, II, Sh eri ff o f Bro wardCo un ty, ROBERT SIERRA, D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 2, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , MA RC U S an d F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ap p el l an tRo b er tSi erra , a n empl o yee o f t h e B ro wa rdCo u n ty Sh er i ff ’s Of fice, conducted a war

rantless search on the com m ercia l prem ises of Appellee T ro pic al A viatio n G ro und Se rv ic es , I nc . ( T ro pic al A viatio n) . P ur suant t o 42 U . S. C. § 19 83, T ro pic al A viatio n br ough t su it ag ai nst S ie rr a, a lle gin g avio la tio n of the F ourth A m en dm en t. S ie rr a fi le d aRu le 12( b) (6 ) m oti on t o di sm iss the co m pla int ba se d onqua lif

ie d im m uni ty . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d S ie rr a’ s m oti on, an d th is a ppe al f oll ow ed . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing S ie rr a’ s m oti on to d ism iss . AFFIRMED.
#### William LONG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Charles Todd Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Holly BENSON, in her official capacity as Secretary Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Douglas Beach, in his official capacity as Secretary Florida Department of Elder Affairs, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 08-16261.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

Justin M. Senior, Law Offices of Justin M. Senior, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Jodi Lynn Siegel, Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., Gainesville, FL, Stephen F. Gold, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Before EDMONDSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and HODGES,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the grant of a preliminary injunction. As we understand it, *931today’s case presents a close question in the application of law to a set of unique facts. We are hot deciding the merits of the case. But we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction in this case. “A preliminary injunction may be issued to protect the plaintiff from irreparable injury and to preserve the district court’s power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction rests in the discretion of the district court.” *Canal Authority of State of Fla. v. Callaway,*489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir.1974). *See also Schiavo v. Schiavo,*403 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir.2005); *Revette v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers,*740 F.2d 892, 893 (11th Cir.1984).

Today’s affirmance of the preliminary injunction does not affect the law of the case on the merits. A full review of appellants’ assertions can be had after — and if— the district court on full consideration decides to grant a permanent injunction.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-29413) pertaining to the Miravant Medical Technologies  401(k)
- Employee Stock Ownership Plan and (Form S-8 No.  333-34953)  pertaining to the
Miravant  Medical  Technologies  1989 Stock  Option Plan,  the Miravant  Medical
Technologies  1994 Stock Option Plan and the Miravant Medical  Technologies 1996
Stock   Compensation   Plan  and  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the
Registration  Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-60251) and in the related Prospectus
of our report dated March 4, 1999,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements of Miravant Medical Technologies  included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                     /S/   ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                     -----------------------
                                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP
March 26, 1999
Woodland Hills, California
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2752

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Robert M. Fast

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

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

Vicky, Child Pornography Victim

lllllllllllllllllllllInterested party - Appellant

___________________________

No. 12-2769

___________________________

In re: Vicky, Child Pornography Victim

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________
Submitted: August 20, 2014

 Filed: August 28, 2014

[Published]

____________

Before MURPHY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Vicky,

Child Pornography Victim v. Fast, 134 S. Ct. 1934 (2014). Robert M. Fast pled

guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2252A(a)(2). Vicky challenged the district court’s restitution order. This court

dismissed her appeal, finding that the defendant must “proximately cause the victim’s

losses.” Vicky, Child Pornography Victim v. Fast, 709 F.3d 712, 721 (8th Cir. 2013). 

The Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment and remanded for further

consideration in light of Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014). In

Paroline, the Court found that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires “restitution in an amount

that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that underlies

the victim’s general losses.” Paroline, 134 S. Ct. at 1727.

* * * * * * *

The case is remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of

Paroline.

______________________________

-2-
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135653 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135653 COA: 281109 Jackson CC: 01-006351-FH JESSIE JAY GILBERT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 28, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0317 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.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
No. 467.

#### Keck Investment Co. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

October 28, 1935.

Petition for writ *634of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

*Messrs. Thomas R. Dempsey*and *A. Colder Mackay*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *F. E. Youngman*for respondent.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1320/2004

of 16 July 2004         

on the issue of licences for the import of garlic in the quarter from 1 September to 30 November 2004         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 of 2 April 2002 establishing the method for managing the tariff quotas and introducing a system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries (2), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for import licences lodged under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 on 12 and 13 July 2004 and sent to the Commission on 15 July 2004, shall be met at a percentage rate of the quantities applied for as set out in Annex I hereto.

Article 2

For each category of importer and the origin involved, applications for import licences under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 relating to the quarter from 1 September 2004 to 30 November 2004 and lodged after 13 July 2004 but before the date in Annex II hereto, shall be rejected.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 July 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 July 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

(2)OJ L 86, 3.4.2002, p. 11.

----

ANNEX I

----

ANNEX II

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PINBIN ZHAO,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 73959

Agency No. A089

- 886

- 745

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 15, 2016 **

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Pinbin Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.

We have jurisdicti on under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

13

- 73959

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034,

1039

- 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We d eny the petition for review

.

Substantial evidence supports the agenc y ’s adverse credibility determination

based on discrepancies the IJ identified between Zhao’s testi mony and declaration

about hi s encounter with family planning officials. See id. at 1 048 (adverse

credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the

circumstances standard). In reaching this conclusion we do not rely on any alleged

discrepancy as to the diamond ring. In the absence of credible testimony, Zha o’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , F.3d 1153,

1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

I, R. Jerry Giles, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial
Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report;

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/ R. Jerry Giles 
R. Jerry Giles 
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket 29-2000]

Notice is hereby given that the application of the Decatur Park District, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 245, for special-purpose subzone status for the natural Vitamin E manufacturing facility of Archer Daniels Midland, Inc. (ADM) in Decatur, Illinois (Doc. 29-2000, 65 F.R. 39123, 6/23/2000), has been amended to add a second site (33.74 acres) in Decatur. This additional site is located at 2311 N. 22nd Street. The application otherwise remains unchanged.

The commend period is reopened until July 5, 2001. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below.

A copy of the application and the amendment and accompanying exhibits are available for public inspection at the following locations: 

Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4008, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230

Airport Administration Office, Decatur Airport, 910 Airport Road, Decatur, IL 62521

Dated: June 6, 2001.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15076 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          288,467
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,202,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                     45,000
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,464,451
<PP&E>                                          587,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                  408,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,198,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,207,233
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         46,243
<OTHER-SE>                                      (54,459)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,198,927
<SALES>                                       6,208,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              6,208,792
<CGS>                                         4,545,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 4,454,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2,095,883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (428,576)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (428,576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (428,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (O.11)


</TABLE>
Nov 12 08 09:46a 

COMMENT 

Subject: Proposed Rules for Trading Off the 

Centralized Market· 

Dear sir/madam, 

It has come to my attention that the CFTC is 

asking for comments on block trading rules. 

p. 1 

Recently we have been staring at the news 

stations watching in astonishment as huge banks are 

going bankrupt in large part because they have not 

been regulated on certain types of trades. This should 

send a signal throughout the industry that true 

government regulation and oversight is needed in all 

art?as. In these trying times when management is 

under pressure to show increases in revenue, letting 

the exchanges make there own rules and guidelines is 

a mistake. 

The CFTC needs to abolish block trading or at 

least make the minimum size large enough to justify 

it, like one half the average daily volume. 

ruo~--

Robert Watters .~·. i, _.... 

~--~ 

·.->· 

. - -.: ~ .- .
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MicroChannel Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2010 (the Report), I, Meetesh Patel, President and Chief Executive 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) 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:  January 7, 2010 | /s/ Meetesh PatelMeetesh Patel
President and Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------











---
No. 525.

#### Great Western Power Co. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

November 18, 1935.

*Messrs. Thomas R. Dempsey*and *A. Colder Mackay*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *A. F. Prescott*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DAVID G. HENNER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 161 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1971 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 161 

Name: David G. Henner 

Effective September 15, 1971 

Effective immediately, the respondent shall cease and desist from 

manipulating or attempting to manipulate the market price of any commodity in 

interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any 

contract market. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

September 15, 1971 

Donald A. Campbell 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
* 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. 97-30748 Summary Calendar

CURLEY CHAVALIER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY OF IBERIA PARISH; NATHANIEL MITCHELL; DAN DAVID, WARDEN; SIDNEY HEBERT, SHERIFF; ERROL ANTOINE ROMO ROMERO, SHERIFF; ROBERT GREEN; AL MERITT, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1930

- - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Curley Chavalier appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged torture and abuse which occurred while he was incarcerated at Iberia Parish Criminal Justice Facility. Chavalier argues that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his action as time-barred. He contends that the doctrine of contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptoNo. 97-30748 -2- operates to suspend limitations and make this action timely. He also argues that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony which he submitted in opposition to summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court. See Chavalier v. Criminal Justice Facility of Iberia Parish , 96-CV-1930 (W.D. La. June 18, 1997). Chavalier has failed to meet his burden of establishing that there is a genuine issue of material fact, or that the district court erred in its evidentiary or legal holdings. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(e); Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America , 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED.
**Supplement to the Fidelity**®**Advisor Diversified International Fund**