alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-10423

Summary Calendar

_____________________

CARLEY J. LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(2:93CV00195)

_________________________________________________________________

December 27, 1995

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carley J. Lewis injured her back at work, and was awarded

Social Security disability insurance benefits for the period March

29, 1989, to January 20, 1991. The district court held that the

record would not support a determination that Lewis, although

unable to perform the full range of sedentary work, is capable of

performing other work existing in significant numbers in the

economy, and it remanded her case to the Commissioner for further

analysis of her exertional and non-exertional limitations and
- 2 -

residual functional capacity. See, e.g., Muse v. Sullivan, 925

F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991) (describing well-known five-step

sequential disability analysis in which the Commissioner has the

burden of showing, at step five, that the claimant's impairment

does not prevent the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful

activity).

Lewis contends that the district court should have remanded,

instead, for an immediate award of disability benefits, because the

Commissioner failed to prove that she is capable of performing

substantial gainful activity. It is within the district court's

discretion to remand to the Commissioner for a further hearing or

to direct the Commissioner to award benefits. Stephens v. Chater,

No. 95-10424, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 1995) (unpublished)

(citing Emory v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir. 1991)).

Because the record is not clear that Lewis is unable to engage in

any substantial gainful activity because of her condition,

additional fact-finding is necessary, and a remand for an immediate

award of benefits is not appropriate. See Dollar v. Bowen, 821

F.2d 530, 534-35 (10th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the district court

did not abuse its discretion by remanding Lewis' case for further

proceedings.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DMARCUS JILES, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-43

§

UNKNOWN WARDEN, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Dmarcus Jiles, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. The court previously

referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at

Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The

magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

recommending that the case dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. To date, the parties have not filed objections.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation, along with the record, pleadings,

and all available evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#12) is

ADOPTED. A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit.

Case 1:24-cv-00043-MAC-ZJH Document 13 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

42
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>

                                  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

         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Environmental  Service
Professionals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
30,  2008 (the  "Report")  I,  Edward L.  Torres,  Chief  Executive  Officer and
President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

Dated:  November 19, 2008


/s/ Edward L. Torres
-------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Torres, Chief Executive Officer and President

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
J. H., Petitioner, v. E.R.S.

No. 19-7943.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (i) on Form S-8 (No. 333-68221) pertaining to registration of sharesunder the Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan andshares under Stone Container Corporation option plans converted toSmurfit-Stone Container Corporation shares in the merger agreement; (ii) onForm S-8 (No. 33-57085) pertaining to registration of shares under theSmurfit-Stone Container Corporation 1992 Stock Option Plan; (iii) on Form S-8(No. 333-31961) pertaining to registration of additional shares under theSmurfit-Stone Container Corporation 1992 Stock Option Plan; (iv) on Form S-8(No. 333-47143) pertaining to the registration of shares under the Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation Management Incentive Plan; (v) on Form S-8 (No.333-32850) pertaining to the registration of shares under the Smurfit-StoneContainer Corporation Hourly Savings Plan, the Smurfit-Stone ContainerCorporation Savings Plan, the Jefferson Smurfit Corporation Hourly Savings Planand the Smurfit Packaging Corporation Savings Plan (vi) on Form S-4 (No.333-43656) pertaining to registration of shares under the Smurfit-StoneContainer Corporation Preferred Stock Plan; (vii) on Form S-8 (No. 333-58018)pertaining to registration of shares under the St. Laurent Paperboard HourlySavings Plan; and (viii) on Form S-8 (No. 333-63450) pertaining to registrationof additional shares under the Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation 1998Long-Term Incentive Plan, of our reports dated February 23, 2005, with respectto the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Smurfit-StoneContainer Corporation, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofSmurfit-Stone Container Corportion, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | Ernst & Young LLP     |

 

St. Louis, Missouri

March 4, 2005

 

----
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/26/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      409,106
COMMITMENTS
  93,691  188,880   71,850  213,036  118,323  378,577  379,053   30,529   30,053

CHANGES FROM 02/19/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -16,664)
 -10,367   -3,318    2,486   -7,242  -17,669  -15,123  -18,501   -1,541    1,837

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    22.9     46.2     17.6     52.1     28.9     92.5     92.7      7.5      7.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      158)
      52       59       66       35       32      129      125
```

----

Updated March 1, 2013
Nathan VAN BUREN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-783.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted.
Order entered September 13, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00404-CR

MICHAEL DWAYNE NEWMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-62630-J

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
# C_2018093EN.01000201.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/2

---

OPINION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 7 March 2018

on a Council recommendation on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank

(CON/2018/14)

(2018/C 93/02)

Introduction and legal basis

Introduction and legal basis

On 23 February 2018 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the President of the European Council for an opinion on a Council Recommendation of 20 February 2018 (1) on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank.

1

The competence of the ECB’s Governing Council to deliver an opinion is based on Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

General observations

General observations

| 1. | The Council’s recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends that Luis DE GUINDOS JURADO be appointed as the Vice-President of the ECB for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2018. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council’s recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends that Luis DE GUINDOS JURADO be appointed as the Vice-President of the ECB for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2018.

| 2. | The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty.

| 3. | The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s recommendation to appoint Luis DE GUINDOS JURADO as the Vice-President of the ECB. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s recommendation to appoint Luis DE GUINDOS JURADO as the Vice-President of the ECB.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 7 March 2018.

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  OJ C 67, 22.2.2018, p. 1.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-377323-CV

IN RE RAYMOND SPOTH, GEORGE RAY, INC.,InN rReE ChHrRiIsS-EaArRlL: FiIrRmMaAnN 	RELATORS

PSI PARTNERS, LTD., AND PSI GP, LLC AS 

THE GENERAL PARTNER OF PSI PARTNERS, LTD.	

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition, and injunction and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus mandamus,  prohibition, and injunction is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:    DAUPHINOT,  J.; CACYYCE, C.J.; and WALKER , LIVINGSTON, HOLMAN, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 20, 2006  October 20, 2006
DeVinche Javon ALBRITTON, Petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 19-8110.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, Petitioner v. Mary BARBATO

No. 19-100

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-91438, Form S-3 No. 33-92548, Form S-8 No. 333-03450, Form S-8
No. 333-03452, Form S-8 No. 333-03454, Form S-8 No. 333-13521, Form S-3 No.
333-21905, Form S-3 No. 333-23005, Form S-3 No. 333-33893, Form S-3 No.
333-37273, Form S-3 No. 333-37565, Form S-3 No. 333-38071, Form S-3 No.
333-41049, Form S-3 No. 333-42417, Form S-3 No. 333-47563, Form S-3 No.
333-57863, Form S-8 No. 333-64377, Form S-8 No. 333-64379, Form S-8 No.
333-69728, Form S-3 No. 333-77941, and Form S-8 No. 333-85684) of Crescent Real
Estate Equities Company of our reports dated March 14, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Crescent Real Estate Equities
Company, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Crescent Real
Estate Equities Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2004.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 14, 2004
Christopher HALL, Petitioner v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

No. 18-1471

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

LATRICE SALVADOR and

TENIOLA SALVADOR

v. 

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-585-SDJ-KPJ

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. On July 2, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed 

findings of fact and a recommendation (the “Report”), (Dkt. #20), that Defendant 

Target Corporation’s (“Target”) Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #18), be granted, and 

Plaintiffs Latrice Salvador and Teniola Salvador’s (“Plaintiffs”) discrimination claim

asserted against Target be dismissed with prejudice.

Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no 

timely objections being filed, 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.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #18), is 

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ discrimination claim asserted against Target is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Case 4:23-cv-00585-SDJ-BD Document 22 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 89
2

Case 4:23-cv-00585-SDJ-BD Document 22 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 90
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/22/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      158,135
COMMITMENTS
  62,384   18,634   12,892   63,282   98,956  138,558  130,482   19,577   27,653

CHANGES FROM 10/15/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,862)
     640   -1,612      568      -14    1,059    1,194       15    1,668    2,847

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    39.4     11.8      8.2     40.0     62.6     87.6     82.5     12.4     17.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      188)
      68       37       47       48       62      139      127
```

----

Updated November 1, 2013
David Edward CAVALIERI, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 18-5659.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 21



G&L Realty Corp.

List of Subsidiaries

November 1, 2005



|1. | G&L Realty Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | G&L Medical Partnership, L.P.
|-- | -----------------------------



|3. | 435 N. Roxbury Drive, Ltd., a California limited partnership
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | G&L Grabel San Pedro, LLC
|-- | -------------------------



|5. | G&L Holy Cross, LLC
|-- | -------------------



|6. | G&L Holy Cross Managers Corp., a California corporation
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------



|7. | G&L Valencia, LLC
|-- | -----------------



|8. | G&L Lyons, LLC
|-- | --------------



|9. | G&L Coronado (1998), LLC
|-- | ------------------------



|10. | Lakeview Associates, LLC
|--- | ------------------------



|11. | Tustin Heritage Place, LLC
|--- | --------------------------



|12. | G&L Tustin II, LLC
|--- | ------------------



|13. | G&L Tustin III, LLC
|--- | -------------------



|14. | G&L Senior Care Partnership, L.P.
|--- | ---------------------------------



|15. | GLR/Yorba Linda, LLC
|--- | --------------------



|16. | 405 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|17. | 415 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|18. | 416 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|19. | 435 Bedford, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|20. | G&L 436 Bedford, LLC
|--- | --------------------



|21. | G&L Sherman Oaks, LLC
|--- | ---------------------



|22. | G&L 4150 Regents, LLC
|--- | ---------------------



|23. | G&L Fourth Street, LLC
|--- | ----------------------
Sarah Denise CARDWELL, Petitioner v. SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 18-9788

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
**Exhibit 32.1 — Certification of Chief Executive Officer — Sarbanes-Oxley Section 906**Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of Triad Guaranty Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Date: May 9, 2006         By:                                    /s/ Mark K. Tonnesen    Mark K. Tonnesen    President and Chief Executive Officer   The 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.