alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Harry Lee RIDDICK, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7103.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 299. No. 300. No. 301. No. 302. No, 303. No. 304.

#### United States *v.*Gerlach Live Stock Co.; United States *v.*Potter; United States *v.*Erreca; United States *v.*James J. Stevinson (a corporation); United States *v.*Stevinson; *and*United States *v.*3-H Securities Co.

These cases are ordered restored to the docket for reargument.
Mario CAMPOS, aka Raul Gonzalez-Reyes, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6853.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 24
 LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
   /s/ Bahram AkradiBahram Akradi 
 LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
   /s/ Timothy C. DeVriesTimothy C. DeVries




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
   /s/ James F. HalpinJames F. Halpin 
 LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
   /s/ Guy C. JacksonGuy C. Jackson




---



##### 



LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
   /s/ David A. LandauDavid A. Landau 
 LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.
 
   /s/ Stephen R. SeftonStephen R. Sefton
NUMBER 13-14-00675-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI — EDINBURG

EDGAR GARCES DIAZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 357th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the record and appellant’s brief. Appellant’s 

brief was filed on July 24, 2015, and appellant has requested oral argument. To date,

the State has not filed a brief. This case involves a capital murder conviction and 

contemplates legal sufficiency, suppression, sentencing, and jury charge issues which 
2

warrant a response from the State. The Court, having fully examined the record and 

appellant’s brief hereby ORDERS the State to file its brief with this Court on or before

November 9, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

7th day of September, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         10,629
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,884
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,155
<PP&E>                                         116
<DEPRECIATION>                                 44
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,176
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,432)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,753
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,756
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               3,019
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 253
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.533)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.533)
        


</TABLE>
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP99-176-036]

Take notice that on June 14, 2001, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 26J, to be effective June 14, 2001.

Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement an amendment to a negotiated rate transaction. Also, Natural tenders for filing copies of the amendment.

Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with §§ 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15695  Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Jimmy CULBERT, petitioner, v. Marshall L. FISHER, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections.

No. 15-9332.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1623 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1623

 Supporting the goals and ideals of a national day of remembrance for 
   United States nuclear weapons program workers and uranium miners, 
                         millers, and haulers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2010

    Ms. Berkley (for herself and Mr. Wamp) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the goals and ideals of a national day of remembrance for 
   United States nuclear weapons program workers and uranium miners, 
                         millers, and haulers.

Whereas hundreds of thousands of men and women have served the United States in 
        building its nuclear defense since World War II including uranium 
        miners, millers, and haulers;
Whereas these dedicated United States workers paid a high price for their 
        service and have developed disabling or fatal illnesses as a result of 
        exposures to beryllium, ionizing radiation, toxic substances, and other 
        hazards that are unique to the production and testing of nuclear 
        weapons;
Whereas these workers were put at individual risk without their knowledge and 
        consent in order to develop a nuclear weapons program;
Whereas in 2009, Congress recognized the contribution, service, and sacrifice of 
        these patriotic men and women;
Whereas a National Day of Remembrance time capsule has been crossing the country 
        the past year collecting the stories of United States nuclear workers 
        and artifacts from the Nation's nuclear defense era; and
Whereas these stories and artifacts reinforce the importance of recognizing 
        these nuclear workers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of a national day of 
        remembrance for United States nuclear weapons program workers 
        and uranium miners, millers, and haulers; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to support 
        and participate in appropriate ceremonies, programs, and other 
        activities to recognize a national day of remembrance for past 
        and current United States nuclear weapons program workers and 
        uranium miners, millers, and haulers.
                                 <all>
```
|Exhibit 31(a)                                                                                                              
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ESI TRACTEBEL FUNDING CORP.(the registrant)Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification                                          
|I, Michael L. Leighton, President (equivalent to the Chief Executive Officer) of ESI Tractebel Funding Corp., certify that:
|1.                                                                                                                         
|2.                                                                                                                         
|3.                                                                                                                         
|4.                                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|5.                                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|Date:  March 23, 2004                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                           
|
# C_2011080EN.01000502.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-490/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Non-reimbursement of costs relating to laboratory analyses and tests carried out in Member States other than the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - National rules not providing for acceptance of liability in the form of a reimbursement of the costs paid for such analyses and tests - National rules making acceptance of liability for health care benefits subject to compliance with the conditions laid down by those rules)

2011/C 80/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent, A. Rodesch, avocat)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC (Article 56 TFEU) — National provisions precluding the reimbursement of medical analyses and laboratory tests carried out in other Member States — Costs accepted only where such tests and analyses are carried out within a laboratory which fully complies with the conditions laid down by national legislation

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to provide, under its social security rules, for the possibility of acceptance of liability for costs relating to laboratory analyses and tests, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Luxembourg Social Security Code, in the version applicable to the dispute, which are carried out in another Member State, by means of reimbursement of the costs paid for those analyses and tests, but by providing solely for a system of direct billing to sickness insurance funds, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to provide, under its social security rules, for the possibility of acceptance of liability for costs relating to laboratory analyses and tests, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Luxembourg Social Security Code, in the version applicable to the dispute, which are carried out in another Member State, by means of reimbursement of the costs paid for those analyses and tests, but by providing solely for a system of direct billing to sickness insurance funds, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
# C_2009113EN.01004604.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/46

---

Action brought on 9 March 2009 — Juvyns v Council

(Case F-20/09)

2009/C 113/98

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marc Juvyns (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 32.2
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Laserscope on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended March 31, 2005, I, Dennis LaLumandiere, Vice President, Finance and Chief FinancialOfficer of Laserscope, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 (1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended March 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Laserscope.        Date:  May 10, 2005 By:       /s/  Dennis LaLumandiere         Dennis LaLumandiere         Vice President, Finance and     Chief Financial Officer   
A signed original of this written statement required by section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by section 906, has been providedto Laserscope and will be retained by Laserscope and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
### *The HONORABLE LEONARD I. GARTH, United State s

Circu it Judge for the United States Court o f Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting b y designation. _____________ No. 95-2345EM

_____________ Marlowe T. Price, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Board of Police Commissioners, * of the City of St. Louis; * Anne-Marie Clarke; Charles E. * Mischeaux; Matthew J. Padberg; * Appeal from the United States Robert T. Haar; * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Defendants, * * Vincent Edwards; * * Defendant-Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Larry Davis; T. Moore; * Freeman Bosley, Jr.; * State of Missouri, * * Defendants. *

_____________ Submitted: December 15, 1995 Filed: March 27, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, GARTH, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. *

_____________
PER CURIAM.

Mar lowe T. Price injured his head during a fight with severa l security g uards at a grocery store in Saint Louis, Missouri. Office r Vincent Edwards responded to the disturbance at the grocery

### -2-

store and placed Pric e under arrest. Price had a visible abrasion on his forehead and was suff ering from a headache at the time of his arrest. On the way t o jail, Price asked to be taken to the hospital, but Edward s ref used. About four hours later, jail officials took Price to th e hos pital. At the hospital, a doctor diagnosed Price with a mild hea d injury and prescribed Tylenol. Price brought th is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action contending Edwards was deliberately indifferent to Price's serious medical needs. See Davis v. Hall , 992 F.2d 151, 153 (8t h Cir. 1993) (per curiam). The jury found in Price's favor and awarded damages. The district court then denied Edwards's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The distric t court also awarded attorney's fees to Price as a prevailing party. Edward s appeals, and we reverse.
AlthoughPrice's injury could be viewed as serious, Price's clai m must fail because he did not produce any verifying medical evidence t o establ ishthe detrimental effect of the delay in medical treatment
. Beyerbach v. Sears , 49 F.3d 1324, 1326-27 (8th Cir. 1995). Viewing th e recordin the light most favorable to Price, there is simply no evidence that the delay in taking Price to the hospital aggravated his fight-relate d injury. Price did not offer any medical testimony, and his medical record s do not show he suffered any detrimental effects from the four-hour delay in treatment. Id. P rice cannot recover attorney's fees because he is no longer a prevailing party. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (Supp. V 1993).

We thus reverse the judgment entered on the jury's verdict and th e order awarding attorney's fees.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

            COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2004/698/CFSP

of 14 October 2004         

concerning the lifting of restrictive measures against Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Decision 93/614/CFSP and Common Position 1999/261/CFSP are hereby repealed.

Article 2

The measures adopted to protect operators against claims in relation to contracts and transactions the performance of which was affected by the imposition of restrictive measures by UNSCR 883 (1993) and related resolutions, shall remain in force.

Article 3

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 4

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 14 October 2004.

For the Council

The President

P. VAN GEEL            

----

(1)OJ L 295, 30.11.1993, p. 7.

(2)OJ L 103, 20.4.1999, p. 1. Common Position as last amended by Common Position 1999/611/CFSP (OJ L 242, 14.9.1999, p. 31).

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    this periodic 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 this periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Life Time Fitness, Inc.
  /s/ Bahram AkradiBahram AkradiChairman of the Board of Directors and Chief ExecutiveOfficer/s/ Michael R. RobinsonMichael R. RobinsonExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer