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. 08-50351

Summary Calendar

ELIJAH LANG,

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

6:06-CV-34

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Elijah Lang appeals the decision of the district court

affirming the finding of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that Lang is able

to perform work for such sedentary level jobs as ticket seller, cashier, or

assembler, for which there are a substantial number of available jobs in the state

and national economy. Based on those findings, the ALJ ruled that Lang is not

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. In the course of the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50351

2

deliberations at that level, the ALJ found Lang not credible. The Appeals

Council denied review, after which Lang sought review in the district court

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court affirmed the ALJ, and Lang

timely filed a notice of appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record on appeal, including the

determinations of the ALJ and the district court, and the law as set forth in the

appellate briefs of the parties and determined by our independent research.

Considering the well-known standard of appellate review of cases such as

this, i.e., whether substantial evidence in the record viewed in its entirety

supports the decision of the Commissioner and comports with relevant legal

standards, we are convinced that neither the ALJ nor the district court

committed reversible error in ruling for the Commissioner and against Lang on

the issues properly preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, the judgment

of the district court affirming the ALJ and the Commissioner is, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 55013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18740]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 55013]]


                Memorandum of September 9, 2005

                
Assignment of Functions with Respect to Loan 
                Guarantees to Egypt

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
                laws of the United States, including section 301 of 
                title 3 of the United States Code, I hereby assign to 
                the Secretary of State the functions conferred upon the 
                President relating to loan guarantees to Egypt in 
                paragraph (2) under the heading ``Economic Support 
                Fund'' in chapter 5 of title I of the Emergency Wartime 
                Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-
                11).

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 9, 2005.

[FR Doc. 05-18740
Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

CATHERINE SMITH

v.

SALLY BRITTINGHAM SMITH and JOHN MICHAEL CHARLES

SMITH

 Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 05D-2508

No. M2006-01806-COA-R3-CV

ORDER

In accordance with our earlier order, we hereby withdraw the Opinion filed in this case on

September 24, 2008, as it failed to address Appellee SallyBrittingham Smith’s request for attorney’s

fees incurred on appeal. We will substitute that Opinion with a revised Opinion addressing the issue

of appellate attorney’s fees. IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

___________________________________

HOLLY M. KIRBY, JUDGE

___________________________________

ALAN E. HIGHERS, P.J., W.S.
STATE v. John Lewis WRAY, Jr.

No. 382P10-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

John L. Wray, Jr., Laurinburg, for Wray, John Lewis, Jr.

Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of December 2015 by Defendant to Vacate/Dismiss Conviction Based on Altered/Falsified Documents:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

BEASLEY, J. recused.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UAP HoldingCorp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 27, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David W.Bullock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:

(1)                   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)                   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 3, 2007
| By:    | **/s/  David W. Bullock**         | ** ** |
|--------|-----------------------------------|------------|
|   | **David  W. Bullock**             | ** ** |
|   | **Executive  Vice President and** | ** ** |
|   | **Chief  Financial Officer**      | ** ** |
|   | **Principal  Financial Officer**  | ** ** |

 

1

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TAMIR HAMMETT,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 299 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of December, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36


                                PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,000,000                                                        March 10, 1997


     As hereinafter stated, for value received Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
Corporation promises to pay to the order of Carl Westcott in Dallas, Texas the
sum of One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars, payable on demand with interest at
the rate of prime per annum from the date of this Promissory Note.   This
Promissory Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Amounts due under
this Promissory Note from and after it is due shall bear interest at the highest
lawful rate.

     We, the makers, sureties, endorsers and guarantors of this Promissory Note,
hereby severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
and notice of protest and diligence of bringing suit for collection, and consent
that time of payment may be extended without notice thereof to any of the
makers, sureties, endorsers or guarantors of this Promissory Note.  It is
further expressly agreed that if this Promissory Note is placed in the hands of
an attorney for collection, or suit is brought on same, or is collected through
the Probate Court, then, and in that event, the makers, sureties, endorsers and
guarantors will pay the holder of this Promissory Note the costs of collection,
including but not limited to the attorney's fees, incurred by the holder of this
Promissory Note.

     MAKER:                          /s/ Douglas Theodore
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    By: Douglas Theodore for
                                    Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CPIInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, O. Joe Caldarelli, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe Company.
| /s/ O. Joe Caldarelli   |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| O. Joe Caldarelli       |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2006         |

 

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


                       KITTY HAWK, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                          1997          1996
                                                       -----------   -----------
<S>                                                    <C>           <C>        
Primary net income per share (1):
Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding ...................................    10,451,807     7,423,436
Common shares related to SAB No. 83 (2) ............            --       544,274
                                                       -----------   -----------
   Weighted average common and common equivalent
     shares outstanding ............................    10,451,807     7,967,710
                                                       ===========   ===========

Net income .........................................   $ 1,413,941   $   149,483
                                                       ===========   ===========

Net income per share ...............................   $      0.14   $      0.02
                                                       ===========   ===========

Fully diluted net income per share:
Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding ....................................    10,451,807     7,423,436
Common shares related to SAB No. 83 (2)
                                                                --       544,274
                                                       -----------   -----------
   Weighted average common and common equivalent
    shares outstanding .............................    10,451,807     7,967,710
                                                       ===========   ===========

Net income .........................................   $ 1,413,941   $   149,483
                                                       ===========   ===========

Net income per share ...............................   $      0.14   $      0.02
                                                       ===========   ===========
</TABLE>

(1)  The Company reports primary net income per share as the effect of dilutive
     securities is less than 3%.

(2)  Stock options granted to executives within 12 months of the filing date of
     the Company's initial public offering have been included in this line item
     through the date of exercise. See Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated
     Financial Statements.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136374-75 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. MARJORIE STOUGH, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 136374 

 COA: 274167 
 Wayne CC: 05-516304-CD

JETT SETT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 

L.L.C., VIANNE FLOYD, and GENERAL 

MOTORS CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

MARJORIE STOUGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136375 

 COA: 275441 
 Wayne CC: 05-516304-CD

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0910 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk
State v. William Gerald Price

104P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

William Gerald Price, for Price, William Gerald.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2016 by Defendant to Reconsider:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3727 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3727

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from proposing any standard of performance for emissions of carbon 
  dioxide from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 
units before the Administrator has finalized a standard of performance 
  for emissions of carbon dioxide from new fossil fuel-fired electric 
                       utility generating units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2013

 Mr. McKinley (for himself, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Stivers, Mrs. 
 Capito, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Guthrie, and Mr. Cramer) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
  from proposing any standard of performance for emissions of carbon 
  dioxide from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 
units before the Administrator has finalized a standard of performance 
  for emissions of carbon dioxide from new fossil fuel-fired electric 
                       utility generating units.

    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 ``Keep the EPA Honest Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST PROPOSING STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR 
              EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM EXISTING POWER PLANTS 
              BEFORE FINALIZING STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR EMISSIONS 
              OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM NEW POWER PLANTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency shall not propose any standard of performance under section 
111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(d)) for emissions of carbon 
dioxide from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating 
units before the Administrator has finalized and published in the 
Federal Register a standard of performance under section 111(b) of such 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)) for emissions of carbon dioxide from new fossil 
fuel-fired electric utility generating units.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--This Act shall not be construed to have 
any implication with respect to whether the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency has authority to propose standards of 
performance under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7411(d)) for emissions of air pollutants other than carbon dioxide from 
existing sources before finalizing standards of performance under 
section 111(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)) for emissions of such 
air pollutants from new sources.
                                 <all>
```
----

(2004/C 65 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2270/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Bari as the seat of the European Bank for the Mediterranean

Southern Italy is becoming a powerhouse for development projects, and the human resources to be found there have an increasingly high degree of professional expertise.

The authorities in southern Italy have undoubtedly matured and are able to respond to the call to cut through the red tape and speed up the procedures.

Apulia in particular has shown itself to be capable of genuinely meshing with European programming.

Will the Commission support Bari's application to become the seat of the European Bank for the Mediterranean, bearing in mind the strategic geopolitical position of Apulia within the Mediterranean region?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

On 14/15 March 2002 the Ecofin and European Council decided to establish an investment Facility with the aim of enhancing European Investment Bank (EIB) operations in Mediterranean Partner Countries, with the clear priority of private sector development. They also decided to examine one year after the creation of the Facility whether to incorporate it into an EIB majority-owned subsidiary.

The Facility was established in Autumn 2002 and the decision on whether to create an EIB majority-owned subsidiary is now expected to be taken in Autumn 2003 by the Council, in liaison with the Commission and the EIB and after consultations with Mediterranean Partner Countries.

The Commission appreciates the Honourable Member's interest in this matter and in the location of such a bank in Bari. While it is at this stage premature to enter into such considerations, should a decision to create a subsidiary be taken in Autumn 2003, its location will have to be chosen taking into account the respective advantages of each possible location.

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 17, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14701

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-00092-CR-4-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VINCENT SAVAGEAU,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 17, 2008)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

William Davison, appointed counsel for Vincent Savageau in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
2

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Savageau’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5th C I R

. 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50966 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO BURCIAGA-JIMENEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(P-97-CR-100-1)

June 15, 1998 Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ricardo Burciaga-Jimenez (Burciaga) entered a conditional

guilty plea to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to

distribute. S ee 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He appeals his conviction,

challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress

the marijuana found in his automobile at the time of hi s arrest.

Specifically, he contends that the Border Patrol’s search violated

his Fourth Amendment rights because the Border Patrol did not have

a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when they stopped his2

vehicle.

Thi s court employs a two-tiered standard of review in

e valuating a district court’s denial of a motion to suppre ss:

findings of fact are accepted unless clearly erroneous and

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo

. U nited States v. ChavezVillarreal

, 3 F.3 d 124, 126 (5th Cir. 1993). This court reviews

the evidence in troduced at the suppression hearing in the light

most favorable to the prevailing party. U nited States v. Ponce

, 8

F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).

The totality of the evidence demonstrates that prior to the

Border Patrol stopping Burciaga’s automobile, the Border Patrol was

aware of specific, articulable fact s together with rational

inferences from those facts. These facts and inferences raised a

r easonable suspicion that Burciaga’s automobile was involved in

illegal activities. S ee United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

, 422 U.S.

873, 884-85 (1975); United States v. Inocencio

, 40 F.3d 716, 722

(5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the district court did not err in

denying Burciaga’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,151,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,751,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (19,493)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,050,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,479,458
<PP&E>                                       1,263,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                (477,507)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,629,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,725,825
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,035
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,740,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,629,260
<SALES>                                      9,970,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,135,294
<CGS>                                        4,053,307
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,484,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                595,580
<INCOME-TAX>                                   198,935
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            396,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   396,645
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        


</TABLE>