alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10588

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDWIN JEROME OWENS, 

a.k.a.

EJ,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

USCA11 Case: 22-10588 Date Filed: 12/02/2022 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10588

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00122-TFM-30

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. 

See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 

1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made 

knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 

1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (appeal waiver is enforceable when district 

court “clearly conveyed to the defendant that he was giving up his 

right to appeal under most circumstances”); United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot 

be vitiated or altered by comments the court makes during sentencing”); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 

(11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of 

the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant 

error).

USCA11 Case: 22-10588 Date Filed: 12/02/2022 Page: 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-20598 

Summary Calendar 

Kevin Connors, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Doctor Edgar Halupis; Terry Speer, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:17-CV-1512 

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin Connors, Texas prisoner # 1284939, 

appeals the dismissal of his claims against Defendants-Appellees Edgar 

Halupis and Terry Speer for deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Connors has waived his claims 

against Speer by failing to brief them on appeal, so we discuss only his claims 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

December 22, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-20598 Document: 00516588403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
No. 21-20598 

2 

against Halupis. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 

744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. See 

Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 

2009). “A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition 

against cruel and unusual punishment when his conduct demonstrates 

deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, constituting an 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 

463 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state 

an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must show both “objective 

exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm” and “that prison officials 

acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to that risk.” Gobert v. 

Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). Absent exceptional 

circumstances, neither unsuccessful medical treatment nor disagreement 

with medical treatment or decisions whether to provide additional treatment 

constitute deliberate indifference. See id. at 346. 

At most, Connors’s claims amount to disagreements about his 

medical treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice, which do not 

constitute deliberate indifference. See id. The record indicates that Halupis 

was aware of Connors’s need for a low residue diet, but he believed that the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s normal diet was low residue and 

sufficient for Connors’s needs. The record also indicates that, while 

compliance was inconsistent, Connors was consistently prescribed a formula 

supplement. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-20598 Document: 00516588403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
<PAGE>
List of Subsidiaries 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
Corporation                        Jurisdiction 

<S>                                 <C> 

Inso Australia Pty, Ltd.           New South Wales, Australia 

Inso Chicago Corporation           Illinois, USA 
 
Inso Corporation KK                Tokyo, Japan 

Inso Corporation, Ltd.             England 
 
Inso Dallas Corporation            Delaware, USA 
 
Inso Florida Corporation           New York, USA

Inso Foreign Sales Corporation     Barbados, USA 
 
Inso Kansas City Corporation       Missouri, USA 
 
Inso (Overseas) Corporation        Delaware, USA 
 
Inso Providence Corporation        Delaware, USA 
 
Inso Securities Corporation        Massachusetts, USA 

Inso Technology Corporation        Illinois, USA 
 
Electronic Book Technologies 
  International, Inc.              Delaware, USA 
 
Electronic Book 
  Technologies, S.A.               Switzerland 
 
Electronic Book 
  Technologies, SARL               France 
 
Electronic Book Technologies 
  Canada, Ltd.                     Ontario, Canada 
 
Henderson Software, Inc.           Colorado, USA

Synex Information AB               Sweden

ViewPort Development AB            Sweden

</TABLE>
FILED

February 27, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

WILMA JEAN LAMPLEY, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellee, )

) Williamson Chancery

VS. ) No. 23651

)

GORDON RAY LAMPLEY, ) Appeal No.

) 01A01-9708-CH-00423

Defendant/Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I have taken the unusual step of preparing this separate opinion because the

assertions in Mr. Lampley’s petition for rehearing require some response. The

petition states that this court’s February 6, 1998 opinion “totally overlooked or

refused to acknowledge” Ms. Lampley’s August 1996 mortgage application in which

Ms. Lampley states that her gross monthly income was $6,652. The petition also

asserts that we must treat this statement as a binding admission by Ms. Lampley

because of our decision in Patterson v. Patterson, App. No. 88-268-II, 1989 WL 5451

(Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 1989), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 1, 1989). Neither

assertion is correct.

Our original opinion recounts Mr. Lampley’s assertion that Ms. Lampley’s

gross monthly income had increased dramatically after 1994 from $833 per month

to $6,652 per month. We also pointed out that her net monthly income was $1,828

after deducting the expenses of her house cleaning business. Because Ms. Lampley’s

testimony about her netmonthly income was essentially unchallenged, we considered

her net monthly income when we determined whether Mr. Lampley had made out a

case for reducing or eliminating his spousal support obligation. While the increase

in Ms. Lampley’s income may very well be a material change in circumstances, it

does not necessarily follow that decreasing or eliminating her spousal support is

warranted.

The circumstances of this case differ markedly from those in Patterson v.

Patterson. Mr. Patterson testified at trial that his interest in his law partnership did
-2-

not have “any tangible value,” even though he had earlier submitted a financial

statement to a bank stating that the value of this interest was $100,000. This court

determined that Mr. Patterson’s financial statement was an admission against interest

that tended to establish that the value of his interest in his law partnership was

$100,000. See Patterson v. Patterson, 1989 WL 5451, at *2. Ms. Lampley did not

provide similar inconsistent testimony in this case. She never attempted to repudiate

the statement on her mortgage loan that her gross monthly income was $6,652, but

rather she simply testified about her net monthly income after the expenses of her

business were deducted from her gross income. The plain difference between gross

and net income is sufficient to render Patterson v. Patterson inapposite.

_______________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/12/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      159,966
COMMITMENTS
  37,107   22,953   23,678   74,179   78,404  134,964  125,036   25,002   34,930

CHANGES FROM 06/05/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      4,917)
     169      565    1,630      -57      -81    1,742    2,114    3,175    2,803

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    23.2     14.3     14.8     46.4     49.0     84.4     78.2     15.6     21.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      163)
      40       40       52       59       63      130      134
```

----

Updated June 15, 2012
Michael SKILLERN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6046.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 27633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14976-000]


Lock\+TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXIII, LLC; Notice of Surrender of 
Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Lock\+TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXIII, LLC, permittee 
for the proposed George B. Stevenson Dam Hydropower Project, has 
requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was 
issued on December 6, 2019 and would have expired on November 30, 
2023.\1\ The project would have been located at the Pennsylvania 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' George B. Stevenson 
Dam on First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek in Cameron County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 169 FERC ] 62,139 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14976 will remain in effect 
until the close of business, June 2, 2022. But, if the Commission is 
closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close 
of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\ New 
applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit 
surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2021).

    Dated: May 3, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09899 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31982-31983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee will 
meet June 14, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, via 
teleconference. The Committee advises

[[Page 31983]]

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on 
implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and 
provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.

Agenda

Public Session

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman
2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of Industry and Security
3. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public
4. Regulations Update
5. Working Group Reports
6. Automated Export System Update

Closed Session

    7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 
Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
[email protected], no later than June 7, 2022.
    To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present 
oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written 
statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to 
facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the 
Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the 
public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via 
email.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 
14, 2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. Sec.  10(d)), that the portion of the 
meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control 
List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 
Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting 
will be open to the public.
    For more information, contact Yvette Springer via email.

Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-11299 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
```
John B. LASCHKEWITSCH, petitioner, v. RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 18-6164.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM WASATCH
INTERACTIVE  LEARNING  CORPORATION  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                             72,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     892,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,019,000
<PP&E>                                            318,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    214,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,723,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             461,000
<BONDS>                                            42,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,219,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,723,000
<SALES>                                         2,224,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,225,000
<CGS>                                             451,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,620,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 76,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    78,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                77,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       77,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .02



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
WVS Financial Corp.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of WVS Financial
Corp. and subsidiary as of March 31, 2004, and the related consolidated
statement of income for the three and nine-month periods ended March 31, 2004
and 2003, the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders' equity for the
nine-month period ended March 31, 2004, and the consolidated statement of cash
flows for the nine-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
June 30, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated August 1, 2003, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
April 30, 2004


                                      E-5
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2208

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain light absorbing photo dye.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 1999

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain light absorbing

photo dye.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.36 Benzenesulfonic acid, 4- chloro-3-[4-

[[4- (dimethylamino)

phenyl]methylene-4,5- dihydro-3-

methyl-5-oxo-1H- pyrazol-1-l], compound with Pyridine 1:1 (provided

for in subheading 2934.90.90) ......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2003 ’’.
2

•HR 2208 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered,

3 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment

5 of this Act.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

INFOGATION CORPORATION

 

Plaintiff

v. 

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION ET AL 

 

Defendants

Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-359-JRG

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE, ANSWER OR

OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND 

WAIVER OF FOREIGN SERVICE REQUIREMENT

Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor 

Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. 

(collectively “Toyota” or “Defendants”), without waiving any defenses described or referred to in 

Rule 12 F.R.C.P., move the Court to extend the time within which Defendants are required to 

move, answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent Infringement. In support 

of their Motion, Defendants state as follows:

1. On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Complaint alleging patent infringement 

against Toyota. 

2. Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & 

Manufacturing North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. were served with 

Plaintiff’s Complaint on October 30, 2023, making their answer date November 20, 2023. 

Case 2:23-cv-00359-JRG Document 4 Filed 11/16/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 65
3. Defendants request an extension of time for Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, 

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, 

Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. to move, answer or otherwise respond to the complaint 

until January 29, 2024 (90-days from Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor 

Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s service 

date) in exchange for Toyota Motor Corporation’s (a foreign corporation) agreement to waive 

formal service of process and consent to service in the action. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the time in which they are required to 

move, answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent Infringement be extended 

up to and through January 29, 2024. 

Dated: November 16, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Deron R. Dacus 

 Deron R. Dacus 

 State Bar No. 00790553 

The Dacus Firm, P.C. 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

 Tyler, TX 75701 

Phone/Fax: (903) 705-1117 

 ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

Attorney for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented 

to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 16th day of November, 2023. 

 /s/ Deron R. Dacus 

 Deron R. Dacus 

Case 2:23-cv-00359-JRG Document 4 Filed 11/16/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 66
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies that Defendants’ counsel has complied with the meet and 

confer requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h) and that the foregoing motion is unopposed. 

 /s/ Deron R. Dacus 

 Deron R. Dacus 

Case 2:23-cv-00359-JRG Document 4 Filed 11/16/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 67
Steven BLAKENEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8970.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS, et al., petitioners, v. NAM CHUONG HUYNH, et al.

No. 17-1411.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 denied.
In Re Renea CHAFE, petitioner.

No. 18M71.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
Omar QAZI, petitioner, v. Janice KILLIAN, Warden, et al.

No. 18-6393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

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