alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31283

(Summary Calendar)

JOHNROBERTSON, astheSurvivingBrothers and Sisters ofLarryRobertson, Deceased; ERNEST

ROBERTSON, as the surviving Brothers and Sisters of Larry Robertson, Deceased; ROSIE

CUNNIKIN, asthe Surviving Brothers and Sisters ofLarryRobertson, Deceased; SARAH DUKES,

asthe Surviving Brothers and Sisters ofLarryRobertson, Deceased; WILLIE ROBERTSON, asthe

Surviving Brothers and Sisters ofLarryRobertson, Deceased;CINDY WILLIAMS, asthe Surviving

Brothers and Sisters of Larry Robertson, Deceased,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

NEW ORLEANS CITY OF; DANNY KRAMER, JR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(91-CV-2914-LLM)

February 17, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellants challenge a jury verdict for the defendants in their suit filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Because the appellants failed to move for a judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, either at the close of the evidence or after the return of the verdict, the issue is
2

reviewed for plain error only, and this Court will reverse only if the judgment complained of results

in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Phillips v. Frey, 20 F.3d 623, 627 (5th Cir. 1994). The appellants

have “waived the right to appeal the sufficiency ofthe evidence, and may only complain ofthe legality

of the verdict, i.e., whether there is any evidence to support the jury verdict.” Id. (Emphasis added).

The testimony of officer Kramer and the taxi driver shows that Kramer, from an objective

standpoint, reasonably believed that he would be killed by Robertson. See Reese v. Anderson, 926

F.2d 494, 500 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, there was some evidence to support the jury’s verdict

that the force used by Kramer was neither excessive nor unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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 Pointer Telocation, Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zvi Fried, Chief Financial
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 to my knowledge:

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

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

|May 31, 2007 |  | /S/ ZVI FRIED
Zvi FriedChief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer
|------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



---

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-20119 Conference Calendar

__________________ DARRELL LENARD BATES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-5241
- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Darrell Lenard Bates, Texas inmate #530855, appeals the dismissal for frivolousness of his civil rights complaint concerning the impact of the federal detainer placed on him while he serves his state sentence. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court for dismissing the complaint as frivolous. Bates' request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.No. 96-20119 -2- This appeal is frivolous and therefore is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. During the pendency of the instant appeal, this court warned Bates about filing frivolous appeals and cautioned him to review any pending appeals for frivolousness. Bates v. Long , No. 95-11213, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 1996) (unpublished). He did not move to dismiss the instant appeal. Accordingly, Bates is BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, IFP, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to Bates, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUKHJIT SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70005

Agency No. A200

- 238

- 001

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 23, 2017 **

Before: M c KEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Sukhjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have juris diction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for deci sion without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 70005

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for sub stantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings

, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinatio ns

created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir.

2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on an inconsistency between Singh’s testimony and supporting documents as

to his brother’s name

, and the lack of detail and his inability to identify the name of

the organiz ation to which he belonged. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Singh’ s explanations do not

compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.

2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’ s denial of CAT relief because

Singh faile d to show it is more likely than not t hat he would be tortured by the

Indian government, or wi th its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia

- Milian v.

Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034

- 35 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2011311EN.01003401.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/34

---

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 — Tegebauer v Parliament

(Case T-308/07) (1)

1

(Right to petition - Petition addressed to the Parliament - Decision to take no action - Action for annulment - Actionable measure - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 311/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ingo-Jens Tegebauer (Trier, Germany) (represented initially by R. Nieporte then by H.-B. Pfriem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by H. Krück and M. Windisch, then by N. Lorenz and E. Waldherr, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by Mr Ingo-Jens Tegebauer on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007 to file and take no further action on the petition submitted by Mr Ingo-Jens Tegebauer on 7 February 2007 (Petition No 95/2007);

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Tegebauer. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Tegebauer.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
In the MATTER OF: J.Y., A.M.

No. COA17-42

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kevin John KIRKMAN

No. 37P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Shawn Robert Evans, Attorney at Law, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of January 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
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 on Form 10-Q of National Patent
Development Corporation (the "Company") for the second quarter ended June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer's knowledge:

         (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.


Date: August 14, 2006





Jerome I. Feldman                                    Scott N. Greenberg
Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4002 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 310
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4002

                          [Report No. 113-420]

 To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 
         at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2014

Mr. Mullin (for himself, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Young of Alaska) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

                             April 28, 2014

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 
         at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.

 

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

SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.

    The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to surrender the charter 
of incorporation issued to that tribe and ratified by its members on 
June 1, 1940, pursuant to the Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et 
seq.; commonly known as the ``Oklahoma Welfare Act''), is hereby 
accepted and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 310

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4002

                          [Report No. 113-420]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 
         at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 28, 2014

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,964
<SECURITIES>                                    38,299
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,286
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,211
<PP&E>                                          19,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               99
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,239
<SALES>                                         50,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,700
<CGS>                                            2,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   761
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,127
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,557
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

I, David Gao, Chief Executive Officer of Beijing Med-Pharm Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:

|   | (1) | The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ DAVID GAO                                                                                                    |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|  

 

 

David GaoChief Executive Officer

November          14, 2006

 

 

 

26 |
# Official Journal L 68/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.068.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 68 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 557 March 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.068.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 68

English edition

Legislation

Volume 557 March 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 184/2012 of 6 March 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2012/140/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 on the measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gambling in the Danish Gaming Duties Act
  (notified under document C(2011) 6499)

   (1) | 3 |
| | | RULES OF PROCEDURE |
| | * | Amendments to the Instructions to the Registrar of the General Court | 20 |
| | * | Practice directions to parties before the General Court | 23 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 184/2012 of 6 March 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

DECISIONS

2012/140/EU

*

Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 on the measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gambling in the Danish Gaming Duties Act
  (notified under document C(2011) 6499)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 6499)

3

RULES OF PROCEDURE

*

Amendments to the Instructions to the Registrar of the General Court

20

*

Practice directions to parties before the General Court

23

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
1401.

#### Eberhart *v.*The State.

Hill, C. J.

Where the defendant was tried and convicted in the city court of Hall county on an indictment for the offense of pointing a pistol at another, the undisputed evidence on his trial showing that the act of pointing a pistol was simply a part of and preceded the consummated act of shooting at another, or assault with intent to murder, the city court was without jurisdiction to try the case, as the misdemeanor was merged into the felony. The refusal to grant a new trial is therefore reversed, with direction that the judge of the city court commit the defendant, to abide the further action of the grand jury. *175
      *Harris*v. *State,*3 *Ga. App.*457 (60 S. E. 127) *; Oglesby*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*195 (57 S. E. 938). *Judgment reversed.*

Indictment for pointing pistol at another, from city court of Nall county- — -Judge Boone. August 26, 1908.

Submitted October 27,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*B. P. Gaillard Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fletcher M. Johnson,*solicitor, contra.
# C_2023024EN.01007901.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/79

---

Action brought on 29 November 2022 — BIW Invest v EUIPO — New Yorker Marketing & Media International (Compton)

(Case T-747/22)

(2023/C 24/105)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BIW Invest AG (Appenzell, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Mielke, U. Stelzenmüller and J. Weiser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: New Yorker Marketing & Media International GmbH (Brunswick, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Compton — EU word mark No 15 578 776

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2022 in Case R 1913/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the other party to bear the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the other party to bear the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---