alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10750 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JEFFERY H. REYNOLDS, III, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CR-003-H)

- - - - - - - - - - July 8, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jeffery H. Reynolds, III, federal prisoner # 61306080, appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, count two of a 20-count superseding indictment. He argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a hearing pursuant to Kastigar v. United States , 406 U.S. 441 (1972), and in calculating the amount of intended loss used to determine his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(R).2

Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convince us that no reversible error was committed. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reynolds’ request for a Kastigar hearing. We recognize that testimony obtained under a grant of act-of-production immunity could not be used directly or derivatively against Reynolds as the custodian of the corporate documents. See Braswell v. United States , 487 U.S. 99, 117 (1988). Reynolds’ production of the subpoenaed corporatedocuments, however, did not constitute testimonial and selfincriminating evidence that the documents existed. See Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). The subpoenaed documents were the kind usually associated with a corporation and their existence was not at issue. Id . at 411-12. Further, the district court’s finding that the amount of intended loss was the total coverage of the policies written is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Krenning , 93 F.3d 1257, 1269 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court employed a reasonable methodology and made a reasonable determination of the loss. Id
. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Reynolds’ pro se motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. See Myers v. Johnson , 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir. 1996).
Charles FOXX, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7448.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in *Brown v. United States,* 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 14, 202 L.Ed.2d 302 (2018) ( Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
Asia JOHNSON, petitioner, v. GERMAN AEROSPACE CENTER.

No. 18-6932.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-30883

_____________________

RICHARD CARMENA; CARL DILLON; JOHNNY HUGGINS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(99-CV-5)

April 10, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This action arises out of claimed race-based discrimination by

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, concerning Appellants not being

selected for promotion to higher-level, ski lled jobs. Summary

judgment was awarded Georgia -Pacific. S ee Carmena v. GeorgiaPacific Corp.

, No. 99-05-D (M.D. La. 26 June 2001); F ED

. R. C IV

. P.

56.

No authority need be cited for the fact that review of a

summary judgment is de novo

, with such judgment being proper if2

there are no genuin e issues of material fact and if the movant

(Georgia-Pacific) is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Along this line, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

not allowing Appellants additional discovery for use in opposing

summary judgment.

For purposes of our review, we assume arguendo that all of

Appellants’ claims were properly raised in district court and that

none are procedurally barred. In any event, as discussed in part

by the district court, we hold that the claims fail under theories

of disparate treatment a nd disparate impact. In short, summary

judgment was proper.

AFFIRMED
Deborah Meek HICKERSON, petitioner, v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A., et al.

No. 17-1589.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
William Floyd MOORE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES; and William Floyd Moore, petitioner, v. United States.

No. 18-7838.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

*1359Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-93403) pertaining to the 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Stock
Option Agreement For Paul M. Jennings of our current report dated February 18,
2000 with respect to the financial statements of ASD Systems, Inc. for the years
ended December 31, 1999 and 1998 and August 5, 1999 (except for Note 11, as to
which the date is August 23, 1999) with respect to the financial statements of
ASD Partners, Ltd. for the period October 14, 1997 to December 31, 1997,
included in the Annual Report (Form 10K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.



Dallas, Texas
March 28, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1379 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1379

     To amend the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 1999, to make a technical correction relating to an 
   emergency supplemental appropriation for international narcotics 
                control and law enforcement assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 1999

  Mr. Gilman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 1999, to make a technical correction relating to an 
   emergency supplemental appropriation for international narcotics 
                control and law enforcement assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
              APPROPRIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE.

    Chapter 3 of title V of division B of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277), 
is amended by striking ``For'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding section 
10 of Public Law 91-672 and section 15 of the State Department Basic 
Authorities Act of 1956, for''.
                                 <all>
```
John Joseph RUSHINSKY, Jr., petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 17-6591.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1382

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide an exemption

from overtime compensation for firefighters and rescue squad members

who volunteer their services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 13, 1999

Mr. BATEMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide

an exemption from overtime compensation for firefighters

and rescue squad members who volunteer their services.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer Firefighter

5 and Rescue Squad Worker Protection Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION.

7 Paragraph (4) of section 3(e) of the Fair Labor

8 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(e)) is amended by

9 adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
2

•HR 1382 IH

1 ‘‘(C) The term ‘employee’ does not include a fire2 fighter or a member of a rescue squad during the period—

3 ‘‘(1) in which the firefighter or rescue squad

4 member volunteers the firefighter’s or member’s

5 services at a facility where the firefighter or member

6 is not then regularly employed; and

7 ‘‘(2) for which the firefighter or member signed

8 a legally binding waiver of overtime compensation

9 for such services.’’.

10 SEC. 3. COERCION.

11 Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

12 (29 U.S.C. 207) is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing:

14 ‘‘(r) No employer may require (directly or indirectly)

15 an employee who is a firefighter or member of a rescue

16 squad to volunteer fire-fighting or rescue squad services

17 during any period in which such firefighter or member

18 would be entitled to receive compensation for overtime em19 ployment under subsection (a) if section 3(e)(4)(C) was

20 not in effect.’’.

Æ
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00058-CV 

 

BRITTON ELKINS, APPELLANT 

V. 

BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC., APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

 Tarrant County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2021-007293-1, Honorable Don Pierson, Presiding 

April 20, 2023 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Britton Elkins, appeals from the trial court’s Final Default Judgment.

1

 

On April 13, 2023, Appellee, Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., filed a suggestion of 

bankruptcy, notifying the Court that Elkins filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States 

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas on January 20. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

8.1. The bankruptcy proceeding is styled In re Britton Gill Elkins, case number 23-30199. 

Pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.2, we abate the appeal and suspend all

appellate deadlines, including Appellant’s current briefing deadline, until further order of 

this Court. The parties may file a motion to reinstate or sever the appeal if permitted by 

federal law or the bankruptcy court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3. The parties shall promptly 

inform this Court of the resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding or any other event 

authorizing reinstatement of the appeal. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
Alex QUINTANA-TORRES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7938.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT**

**RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)**

 

I, Reynolds C. Bish, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Captiva Software Corporation; 

 

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 tomake 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 financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, 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 ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed suchdisclosure 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 usby 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) 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 of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 adverselyaffect 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.
Caner DEMIRAYAK, petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, et al.

No. 18-710.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Keith Stuart CUMBEE, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-7261.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Jordie L. CALLAHAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7876.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Betty Caitlin Nicole SMITH, applicant, v. Zachary Taylor DANIEL.

No. 18A995 (18-8559).

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Application for stay addressed to Justice SOTOMAYOR and referred to the court denied.
Matthew J. KING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6873.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# L_2008331EN.01S00301.xml

| 10.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 331/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 331/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4683 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4683

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to provide that 
grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court of the District of 
  Columbia shall receive fees and expenses at the same rates paid to 
 grand and petit jurors appearing in the district courts of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 2019

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to provide that 
grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court of the District of 
  Columbia shall receive fees and expenses at the same rates paid to 
 grand and petit jurors appearing in the district courts of the United 
                                States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Juror Pay 
Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHING FEES FOR JURORS SERVING IN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT SAME RATES PAID FOR JURORS 
              SERVING IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

    (a) Establishment of Fees.--Section 11-1912(a), District of 
Columbia Official Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court shall 
receive fees and expenses at rates equivalent to the rates provided 
under section 1871 of title 28, United States Code, for fees and 
allowances paid to grand and petit jurors appearing in the district 
courts of the United States.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 15-718, District of Columbia 
Official Code, is repealed.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply 
with respect to fees and expenses paid on or after the first day of the 
first fiscal year which begins after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2008292EN.01S00301.xml

| 31.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 292/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 292/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided to no longer quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 27652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09883]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Clinical Study 
Applications.
    Date: June 22, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Yun Mei, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard, Suite #670, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-4639, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d141803430008042d030405430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dba2aeb5f5b6beb29bb5b2b3f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 4, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-09883 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Jean COULTER, petitioner, v. Blaze TATANANNI, et al.

No. 18-732.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

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

| Dated:                ** **                March 31, 2008 |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                           |   |   |   |
|                                                           |   |   |   |
| /s/ John                M. Tastad                         |   |   |   |
| John                M. Tastad                                  |   |   |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer                         |   |   |   |

----