alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U nit edStates C ou rt o f App eal s For th e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-2015 CHARLES J. SENIOR; NORMAN FAHY; RONALD D. PHIPPS; RAYMOND W. POSTMA; THOMAS G. HIRL; GARRETT M. FAGAN; UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 12004, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. NSTAR ELECTRIC AND GAS CORPORATION; COMMONWEALTH GAS COMPANY, Defendants, Appellees.

ERR ATA SHEET The op ini on of thi s c our t, iss uedMa y 3 1, 200 6, sho uld be ame nde d a s f oll ows : On pag e 1 4, lin e 6 : R epl ace "i nsu red " w ith "e nsu red " On pag e 2 9, lin e 2 0: Rep lac e " onl y t en" wi th "ni net y"
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOHN G. BERGDOLL REGISTERED 

VOTER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellant

v.

ROBERT TORRES, ACTING 

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE AND FOR THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 37 MAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 6 MD 2017 

dated July 12, 2017.

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: January 18, 2018

AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2018, the order of the Commonwealth Court 

is hereby AFFIRMED.
Edwin Arthur AVERY v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-633

Supreme Court of the United States.

Decided March 23, 2020

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of Justice KAVANAUGH respecting the denial of certiorari.

Federal prisoners can seek postconviction relief by filing an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. State prisoners can seek federal postconviction relief by filing an application under § 2254.

The issue in this case concerns second-or-successive applications. As relevant here, the law provides that a "claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application *under section 2254* that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." § 2244(b)(1) (emphasis added).

The text of that second-or-successive statute covers only applications filed by state prisoners under § 2254. Yet six Courts of Appeals have interpreted the statute to cover applications filed by state prisoners under § 2254 and by federal prisoners under § 2255, even though the text of the law refers only to § 2254. See *Gallagher v. United States* , 711 F.3d 315 (CA2 2013) ; *United States v. Winkelman* , 746 F.3d 134, 135-136 (CA3 2014) ; *In re Bourgeois* , 902 F.3d 446, 447 (CA5 2018) ; *Taylor v. Gilkey* , 314 F.3d 832, 836 (CA7 2002) ; *Winarske v. United States* , 913 F.3d 765, 768-769 (CA8 2019) ; *In re Baptiste* , 828 F.3d 1337, 1340 (CA11 2016).

After Avery's case was decided, the Sixth Circuit recently rejected the other Circuits' interpretation of the second-or-successive statute and held that the statute covers only applications filed by state prisoners under § 2254. *Williams v. United States* , 927 F.3d 427 (2019).

Importantly, the United States now agrees with the Sixth Circuit that "Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to Section 2255 motions" and that the contrary view is "inconsistent with the text of Section 2244." Brief in Opposition 10, 13. In other words, the Government now disagrees with *1081the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Government's favor.

In a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this question of federal law.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

FFWCT, LLC’S, USA FLAG, LLC’S, AND TRAVIS BURNETT’S MOTION TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL OR ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), FFWCT, LLC, USA Flag, LLC, and Travis Burnett 

(collectively “USA Flag”) move for leave to file under seal two exhibits in connection with their 

Sur-Reply in opposition to USA Football’s motion for summary judgment regarding “national 

governing body” in Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00465-ALM. Both of these documents has been 

designated as Confidential or Attorneys Eyes Only by one or more parties or a non-party to this 

matter, pursuant to the Protective Order (Dkt. 21).

The documents to be filed under seal are referenced in the Declaration of Mark D. Nielsen, 

filed concurrently herewith (“Nielsen Decl.”), and include:

1. Exhibit 1 to the Nielsen Decl. – Excerpts from the deposition transcript of Curtis 

Hollomon, which have been designated either Confidential or Attorneys Eyes Only by USA Flag. 

2. Exhibit 2 to the Nielsen Decl. – Excerpts from the deposition transcript of Charles 

Davis, which have been designated either Confidential or Attorneys Eyes Only by USA Flag.

Accordingly, in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(E) requiring sealing of 

“information that has been designated as confidential or proprietary under a protective order,” 

FFWCT, LLC; USA FLAG, LLC; AND 

TRAVIS BURNETT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

USA FOOTBALL, INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action Nos. 4:23-cv-00465-ALM 

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 82 Filed 07/05/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2989
USA Flag respectfully requests that these documents be sealed and admitted into evidence with 

their Sur-Reply in opposition to USA Football’s motion for summary judgment regarding 

“national governing body.”

USA Flag further respectfully requests that if for any reason any portion of this Motion is 

denied, the Court not strike the documents (as contemplated by Local Rule CV- 5(a)(7)(E)), but 

instead allow them to appear on the docket unsealed.

Respectfully submitted,

SCHEEF & STONE, L.L.P.

Date: July 5, 2024 /s/ Mark D. Nielsen

Mark D. Nielsen 

Texas Bar No. 24062361

Mark.Nielsen@solidcounsel.com

Bryan Haynes

Texas Bar No. 09283520

Bryan.Haynes@solidcounsel.com

2600 Network Blvd., Suite 400

Frisco, Texas 75034

(214) 472-2100 Telephone

(214) 472-2150 Fax

Michael C. Smith

Texas Bar No. 18650410

Michael.Smith@solidcounsel.com

113 East Austin Street

Marshall, Texas 75670

(903) 938-8900 Telephone

ATTORNEYS FOR FFWCT, LLC, USA 

FLAG, LLC, AND TRAVIS BURNETT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on July 5, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Court using the ECF system, which will send a notification of the 

filing via electronic mail to all counsel of record.

/s/ Mark D. Nielsen

Mark D. Nielsen

Case 4:23-cv-00465-ALM Document 82 Filed 07/05/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2990
V

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2276

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries of antifriction

bearings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 17, 1999

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain

entries of antifriction bearings.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF

4 ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.

5 (a) LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.—

6 Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff Act

7 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) or any other provision

8 of law, the United States Customs Service shall, not later

9 than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,

10 liquidate or reliquidate those entries made at various
2

•HR 2276 IH

1 ports, which are listed in subsection (c), in accordance

2 with the final results of the administrative reviews, cov3 ering the periods from November 9, 1988, through April

4 30, 1990, from May 1, 1990, through April 30, 1991, and

5 from May 1, 1991, through April 30, 1992, conducted by

6 the International Trade Administration of the Department

7 of Commerce for such entries (Case No. A–427–801).

8 (b) PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS OWED.—Any amounts

9 owed by the United States pursuant to the liquidation or

10 reliquidation of an entry under subsection (a) shall be paid

11 by the Customs Service within 90 days after such liquida12 tion or reliquidation.

13 (c) ENTRY LIST.—The entries referred to in sub14 section (a) are the following:

Entry Number Entry Date

(1001)016–0112010–6 .......................................... May 26, 1989

(4601)016–0112028–8 .......................................... June 28, 1989

(4601)016–0112126–0 .......................................... December 5, 1989

(4601)016–0112132–8 ..........................................December 18, 1989

(4601)016–0112164–1 .......................................... February 5, 1990

(4601)016–0112229–2 .......................................... April 12, 1990

(4601)016–0112211–0 .......................................... March 21, 1990

(4601)016–0112223–5 .......................................... April 4, 1990

(4601)710–0225218–8 .......................................... August 24, 1990

(4601)710–0225239–4 ..........................................September 5, 1990

(4601)710–0226079–3 .......................................... May 21, 1991

(1704)J50–0016544–7 .......................................... January 31, 1991

(4601)016–0112237–5 .......................................... April 19, 1990

(4601)710–0226033–0 .......................................... May 7, 1991

(4601)710–0226078–5 .......................................... May 15, 1991

(4601)710–0225181–8 .......................................... August 24, 1990

(4601)710–0225381–4 .......................................... October 3, 1990.

Æ
Georgia PLUMB, et al., petitioners, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 18-49.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 215 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 215

 To provide discretion to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons in the 
     transfer of District of Columbia inmates to private contract 
                              facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide discretion to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons in the 
     transfer of District of Columbia inmates to private contract 
                              facilities.

    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 Prison Safety 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING DISCRETION TO BUREAU OF PRISONS IN TRANSFER OF 
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INMATES TO PRIVATE CONTRACT 
              FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 11201(c)(1) of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 (DC Code, sec. 24-1201(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
        ``shall house'' and inserting ``may house'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``at least 2000'' and 
        inserting ``up to 2000''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``at least 50 
        percent'' and inserting ``up to 50 percent''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997.
                                 <all>
```
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999

Commission File Number: 333-64551

Painewebber Mortgage Acceptance Corporation V issuer in
respect of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 1999-C1
(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware      			13-3748219
(State or Other Juris-		(I.R.S. Employer
diction of Incorporation)     Identification No.)

1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019
(Address of Principal Executive Office)

212-713-7900
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:     None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:     None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed  by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  X   No _

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of
the Registrant as of December 31, 1999.

Not applicable.

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31,
1999.

Not applicable.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Diagnostics Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Richard C. Birkmeyer, 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 Company's 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


August 14, 2002                            /s/ Richard C. Birkmeyer
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard C. Birkmeyer
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH 

NO. 2-08-443-CV

LUDWIG OTTO APPELLANT

V.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

On December 29, 2008, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed this court that

arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).

We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

appellant, within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record
2

and provided this court with proof of payment.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 22, 2009
Henry PRATT, Applicant, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General.

No. 19A728

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Application for stay of removal addressed to Justice Ginsburg and referred to the Court denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-83438) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan of Maxwell Shoe 
Company Inc. of our report dated December 15, 1997, with respect to the 
consolidated financial statements of Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. included in the 
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 31, 1997.

Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of 
Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. listed in Item 14(a)(2). This schedule is the 
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an 
opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the consolidated financial 
statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic 
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects 
the information set forth therein.


                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
January 26, 1998
Exhibit 12.2


             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
       ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Annual Report of Cristalerias de Chile S.A. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rodrigo Palacios Fitz-Henry, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.



/s/ Rodrigo Palacios Fitz-Henry

Rodrigo Palacios Fitz-Henry
Chief Financial Officer
Cristalerias de Chile S.A.
Dated: June 26, 2003
```

```

----

Updated December 20, 2013
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This Certificate is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification is
included solely for the purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose. In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Super Vision
International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Super Vision International, Inc. that to such officers knowledge:



1. such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Super Vision
International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Super Vision International, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Super Vision International, Inc.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | SUPER VISION INTERNATIONAL, INC.     
|Dated: March 25, 2004 |  | /s/     Brett M. Kingstone           
|                      |  | Brett M. Kingstone,                  
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Dated: March 25, 2004 |  | /s/     Danilo Regalado              
|                      |  | Danilo Regalado                      
|                      |  | Chief Operating Officer and          
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

COREY EUGENE ALEXANDER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K, Reidinger, 

District Judge. (3:01-cr-00216-MR-1) 

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 16, 2009 

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Corey Eugene Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Corey Eugene Alexander appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a 

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Alexander, No. 3:01-cr00216-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. June 11, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
United States District Court 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RONALD COLEMAN (1) 

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL NO. 4:23-CR-203-ALM-AGD-1 

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, 

this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

The Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and recommendations (Dkt. #17) that

Defendant be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for term of ten

(10) months, to run consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, with twenty-six (26) months

of supervised release to follow under the previous conditions of supervised release. The Magistrate 

Judge further recommended that Defendant be placed at FCI Seagoville in Seagoville, Texas, if 

appropriate. 

Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #17) and having 

received Defendant’s waiver of his right to object to the proposed findings and recommendations 

of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #16), the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of 

the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and 

conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, Defendant is hereby sentenced to a term of ten (10) 

months, to run consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, with twenty-six (26) months of 

supervised release to follow under the previous conditions of supervised release. The Court further 

recommends Defendant be placed at FCI Seagoville in Seagoville, Texas, if appropriate. 

Case 4:23-cr-00203-ALM-AGD Document 18 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 44
2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:23-cr-00203-ALM-AGD Document 18 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 45