alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 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.

1 United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

May 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 03-60849

Summary Calendar

__________________________

LOUISE MCKENZIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RIVER REGION MEDICAL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(No. 3:99-CV-366)

___________________________________________________

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

In July 1998, the River Region Medical Corporati on (“River Region”) di scharged Louise

McKenzie from employment for allegedly racially harassing employees whom she supervised.

McKenzie filed a suit against River Region, two supervisors, and Quorum Health Group, Inc.

(“Quorum”), a company allegedly involved in the day -to-day operations of River Region. After her2

termination, McKenzie alleged a variety of state and federal claims aga inst t he Defendants. The

district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. McKenzie appeals that ruling.

We are unable to reach the merits of McKenzie’s arguments; her appellate brief precludes us

from doing so. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) states that an appellant’s brief must

con t ain an argument section with “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the

authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Based on Rule 28, this Court has

o n several occasions declined to consider the merits of a claim where an appellant’s brief lacked

“logical argumentation or citation to authority. ” See, e.g., Alameda Films SA de CV v. Authors

Rights Restoration Corp. Inc.

, 331 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2003); Meadow briar Home for Children, Inc.

v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532 (5th Cir. 1996); Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

, 13 F.3d 888, 911 (5th

Cir. 1994). We have noted that “it is not the function of the Court of Appeals to comb the record

for possible error, but rather it is counsel’s responsibility to point out distinctly and specifically the

precise matters complained of, with appropriate citations to the page or pages in the record where

the matters appear.” United States v. Martinez-Mercado , 888 F.2d 1484, 1492 (5th Cir. 1992).

The dearth of citation to the record, and the utter lack of references to evidence supporting

McKenzie’s claims constitute a violation of Rule 28(a)(9). McKenzie argues repeatedly that she

submitted “credible” and “substantial” evidence in support of her claims, but then fails to specify the

content of this evidence, much less where it can be located in the record. The scant references to the

record identify only extraneous matters that fail to provide any logical argumentation. In the absence

of an adequate brief, we must, and do, AFFIRM the district court’s ruling.
STATE v. Terance Germaine MALACHI

142PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2017

Aaron Thomas Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Malachi, Terance Germaine.

John R. Green, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 30th of November 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of December 2017."

*144State of NC shall have up to and including the 19th day of December 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
----

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 6 July 2006

at the request of the Council of the European Union on a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro and on a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 on the conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the Member States adopting the euro

(CON/2006/36)

(2006/C 163/07)

Introduction and legal basis

On 4 July 2006, the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on a Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro (hereinafter ‘proposed regulation I’) and on a Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 on the conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the Member States adopting the euro (hereinafter ‘proposed regulation II’).

The ECB's competence to deliver an opinion is based on Article 123(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which is the basis for the two proposed regulations. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

1.   Purpose of the proposed regulations

2.   Specific observations

3.   Drafting proposal

In addition to the above advice, a drafting proposal is set out in the Annex.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 6 July 2006.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

----

(1)OJ L 106, 15.4.2004, p. 22. Decision as last amended by Decision 2006/34/EC, Euratom (OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 32).

(2)OJ L 300, 29.11.2000, p. 2.

(3)OJ L 149, 23.6.2000, p. 21. Decision replaced by Decision 2002/682/EC, Euratom (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7).

----

ANNEX

Drafting proposal (proposed regulation I)

----

(1)  Italics in the body of the text indicate where the ECB proposes deleting text.

(2)  Bold in the body of the text indicates where the ECB proposes inserting new text.

----
In the MATTER OF: A.P.R.

No. COA17-111

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130121 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130121 COA: 254624 Jackson CC: 03-000676-FC JEFFREY ALLEN RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
# C_2012243EN.01001202.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Berning & Söhne v Commission

(Case T-445/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements and concerted practices - Markets in zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’ and attaching machines - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Coordinated price increases, fixing of minimum prices, sharing of customers and of markets and exchange of other business information - Proof - Rights of the defence - Single and continuing infringement - Time-bar - Fines - Duration and gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

2012/C 243/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: P. Niggemann and K. Gaßner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz and R. Sauer, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report of Town
Sports International Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Richard Pyle, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and result of operations of the Company.



| |                                         
| | ----------------------------------------
| | /s/ RICHARD PYLE                        
| |                                         
| | Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.
| | Chief Executive Officer                 

August 16, 2004
PINE v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. # 1552, et al.

335A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 9, 2017

Holly M. Stott, Attorney at Law, M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. # 1552, et al.

David A. Shelby, Attorney at Law, Salisbury, for Pine, Patricia.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of November 2017 by Plaintiff to Stay Deadline for Filing Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of November 2017."
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 24 - 00037 - CV LOIS STEVEN , A

PPELLANT V. OBREGON REMODELING (MAX) , APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 3

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No . 2022 - 005665 - 3 , Honorable Mike Hrabal , Presiding



### May 20 , 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Lois Steven, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Final Judgment. 1 Steven’s brief was due March 25, 2024, but was not filed. 2 By letter of April

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.

2 On April 15, 2024, Steven attempted to file a document via eFile requesting a five - week extension to file a brief. This document was rejected by the Clerk of the Court, however, because it was not served on the parties and did not include a certificate of conference as required by the appellate rules. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.5, 10.1(a)(5). Steven was instructed to file a corrected motion for extension in compliance with the appellate rules by April 18, 2024. Steven did not file a corrected motion and has not filed any additional requests for extension.2

24, 2024, we notified Steven that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution, without further notice, if a brief was not received by May 6. To date, Steven has neither filed a brief nor had any further communication with this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8 (a)(1), 42.3(b). Per Curiam
STATE of North Carolina v. Curtis Mario BENTON, Defendant.

No. COA13-1204-2.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 18, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE v. Joe Robert REYNOLDS

155P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Reynolds, Joe Robert.

William P. Hart, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, C. Ricky Bowman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2017 by Defendant to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review and Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and to Dissolve Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4218 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4218

        To reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2014

  Mr. Grijalva (for himself and Mr. Pastor of Arizona) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area.

    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 ``Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    Section 7 of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 2000 
(16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 106-319; 114 Stat. 1284) is amended by 
striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2030''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4311 

To amend the Wagner-Peyser Act to include American Samoa in the 

employment services provided under that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2014 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Wagner-Peyser Act to include American 

Samoa in the employment services provided under that 

Act, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF AMERICAN SAMOA IN THE WAG4 NER-PEYSER ACT. 

5 The Wagner-Peyser Act is amended— 

6 (1) in section 2(5) (29 U.S.C. 49a(5)), by in7 serting ‘‘American Samoa,’’ after ‘‘Guam,’’; 

8 (2) in section 5(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 49d(b)(1)), by 

9 inserting ‘‘and American Samoa’’ after ‘‘Guam’’; 

10 and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4311 IH

1 (3) in section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 49e(a))— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘allot to Guam’’ and in3 serting ‘‘allot to— 

4 ‘‘(1) Guam’’; 

5 (B) by striking the period at the end and 

6 inserting a semicolon; and 

7 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) American Samoa an amount which, in re9 lation to the total amount available for the fiscal 

10 year, is equal to the allotment percentage that Guam 

11 received of amounts available under this Act in fiscal 

12 year 1983’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008022EN.01005303.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/53

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2007 — Asa Sundholm v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-42/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - Appraisal for the year 2004 - Objectives of and criteria for appraisal - Damages)

(2008/C 22/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, Agents.)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the year 2004 and a claim for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls Ms Sundholm's career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Ms Sundholm's career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006, p. 54.

1

---
STATE v. Salim Abdu GOULD

91P14-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2017

Salim Abdu Gould, for Gould, Salim Abdu.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of November 2017 by Defendant for Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of November 2017."
Cecelia W. PEOPLES and Ernest A. Robinson, Jr. v. Thomas H. TUCK

No. 423P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Donald J. Dunn, Attorney at Law, Goldsboro, Molly M. Schertzinger, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Jonathan M. Smith, Attorney at Law, Goldsboro, for Peoples, Cecelia W., et al.

David O. Lewis, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Tuck, Thomas H.

*731***ORDER***

Defendant's petition for discretionary review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding to the Court of Appeals to reconsider its holding in light of *United Community Bank (G.A.) v. Wolfe* , --- N.C. ----, 799 S.E.2d 269 (2017). *See**United Cmty. Bank* , --- N.C. at ----, 799 S.E.2d at 272 (recognizing that, under N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(e), a party may not rest upon an affidavit containing merely "conclusory statement[s] without any supporting facts" to create a genuine issue of material fact).:

"Spec Order by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
State of North Carolina v. Jarvis Montrale Bell

No. COA16-326

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, Sidney
L. Anderson, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chatsworth Data Solutions,
Inc.




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  December
      17, 2008
              /s/ Sidney L. AndersonSidney
      L. AndersonChief
      Executive Officer and President
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers
of Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such
officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
October 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirement of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 14, 2010

/s/ Douglas
Oliver     Douglas Oliver     
Chief Executive Officer     Yukon Gold Corporation,
Inc.

Dated: December 14, 2010

/s/ Kathy
Chapman     Kathy Chapman     Chief
Financial Officer     Yukon Gold Corporation,
Inc.

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

---
NUMBER 13-15-00314-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS AND DAVID R. CABE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relators State Farm Lloyds and David R. Cabe filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

in the above cause on July 10, 2015 through which they contend that the trial court erred 

in refusing to grant summary judgment in their favor where the parties in the underlying 

proceeding have allegedly resolved their issues through a contractual appraisal process. 

The Court requests that the real parties in interest, Horacio Salinas and Maria Salinas, or 

any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response 

to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date 

of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

14th day of July, 2015.