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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-10517

Summary Calendar

MARTIN MILTON MILLER, JR

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ALEXANDER M KALMANOV, Medical Doctor; DAVID POTTER, D.O.;

JOHN E WILSON, P.A.

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CV-159

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Milton Miller, Jr., Texas prisoner # 634502, appeals from the

district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the

dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We

review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Cousin v.

Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 30, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-10517

2

Miller asserts that, for a period of five years, defendants Kalmanov and

Wilson exercised deliberate indifference to the treatment of his hemorrhoid

condition. The record reflects that Miller was treated for his hemorrhoids,

including two separate visits with specialists. Miller’s complaints regarding his

treatment constitute disagreement with the method of treatment that was

provided and are non-actionable under the Eighth Amendment. See Varnardo

v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Miller also asserts that the defendants lied about his medical condition to

retaliate against Miller for filing grievances concerning the method oftreatment

that he was receiving. He contends that Wilson and Kalmanov engaged in

retaliatory practices by consistently prescribing hydrocortisone cream although

it caused Miller burning pain. Miller has not alleged “a chronology of events

from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d

41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996). He has not shown that but for a retaliatory motive, the

defendants would not have prescribed hydrocortisone cream to treat his

hemorrhoid condition. See id. The district court did not err in granting the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Cousin, 325 F.3d at 637. 

Miller has abandoned his conspiracy and deliberate indifference claims

against defendant Potter. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO				18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350				AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO				SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James Farinella, certify that:			     1.   I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB  of  SoftNet  Technology Corporation;			     2.   Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly report;			     3.   Based on my knowledge,  the financial statements,  and other financial information  included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;			     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and  procedures  (as defined in Exchange  Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:			          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;			          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and			          c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;			     5.   I  have  disclosed,  based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons  performing  the  equivalent  function):			          a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and			          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and			     6.   I have  indicated in this  quarterly  report whether or not there were significant  changes in  internal  controls or in other  factors  that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including  any  corrective  actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 15, 2005/s/ James Farinella                     			James Farinella			Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

----
#### STATE of Maine v. Earl LOSIER, Jr.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued May 9, 1990.

Decided May 18, 1990.

Rae Ann French, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Augusta, for plaintiff.

Richard Hall (orally), Bangor, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

McKUSICK, Chief Justice.

The Superior Court (Penobscot County, *Chandler, J.),*in a jury-waived trial, found Earl Losier, Jr., of Bangor guilty of the murder of his younger brother, his brother’s girlfriend, and her two brothers. The court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment for each of the four murders. On his appeal, defendant does not challenge the Superior Court’s factual finding that he did shoot and kill the four victims with the requisite culpable state of mind to constitute knowing and intentional murder in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(A) (1983); he challenges only the Superior Court’s rejection of his insanity defense.

A criminal defendant pleading insanity has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was not criminally responsible because “at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 39(1) (Supp.1989). In order to prevail on an appeal from the trial court’s rejection of his insanity defense, the defendant must make “a strong showing that no factfinder acting reasonably could conclude otherwise than that [he] lacked criminal responsibility.” *See State v. Lane,*532 A.2d 144, 145 (Me.1987). In other words, the defendant must show that the evidence at trial compelled the factfinder to conclude that the defendant had indeed carried his burden of proof. *Cf Luce Co. v. Hoefler,*464 A.2d 213, 215 (Me.1983) (“a determination [that a party failed to carry his burden of proof] may be reversed on appeal only if the evidence ... was of such a nature that the factfinder was compelled to believe it”). Defendant on the present appeal fails to make any such showing. The trial record contains a conflict of psychiatric testimony *888over whether defendant suffered from a diagnosable psychiatric condition. Furthermore, the justice heard testimony of defendant’s conduct before, during, and immediately after the shooting, and from that evidence could draw his own conclusions on defendant’s criminal responsibility. Defendant establishes no basis for us to interfere with his four murder convictions.

The entry is:

Judgments affirmed.

All concurring.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,897
<PP&E>                                         108,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,240
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,888
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,441
<SALES>                                        109,715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,715
<CGS>                                           79,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   344
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                       940
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                     325
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,624
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38


</TABLE>
# C_2007186EN.01006301.xml

| 9.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/63

---

Corrigendum to draft Council resolution of 31 May 2007 on the Consumer Policy Strategy of the EU (2007-2013)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 162 of 14 July 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 162 of 14 July 2007

(2007/C 186/12)

The publication of the draft Resolution in the abovementioned Official Journal is annulled.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2000, and to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-10631, 33-56772, 33-82560,
333-19265, 333-31391, 333-31393 and 333-65547) and Forms S-3 (File No's.
333-27189, 333-37946, 333-86617 and 333-48097) of our report dated March 16,
2001, relating to the audits of the consolidated balance sheets of International
Remote Imaging Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999,
and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 30, 2001
NSJ Director Retirement Allowance Plan





Nu Skin Japan Director Retirement Allowance Plan



1.    
     Background. Based on
Japanese employment regulations and customary business practice, Nu Skin Japan
(NSJ) has implemented a retirement plan for NSJ employees. Employees who also
serve on the Board of Directors are not eligible for the general retirement plan
available to NSJ employees. In order to reward NSJ’s most senior managers
for their leadership, commitment and overall contribution to NSJ, and in order
to attract and retain the highest quality leaders available to NSJ, a Director
Retirement Allowance Plan was adopted that is available to senior managers in
Japan who are both officers of the Corporation as well as members of the Board. 


2.    
    Details. The plan provides additional compensation above
regular salary and bonuses,  at the date of retirement,  to eligible  members as
provided in the following formula:



          Monthly Salary at Retirement *
Years of Service * Efficiency Rate



          (The  efficiency  rate  is  an
arbitrary multiplier based on position)



	 	 	Efficiency Rate	 
	 	President and Board Member	2.0	 
	 	Vice President and Board Member	1.9	 
	 	Executive Director and Board Member	1.8	 




3.    
    Additional  Allowance.  Under  the  plan  the  Board  of
Directors  is  authorized  to approve at their sole  discretion,  an  additional
allowance  at the date of  retirement  in an amount  determined  by the Board of
Directors but not more than 25% of the amound  determined in accordance with the
formula set forth in paragraph 2 above.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

NATHAN SMITH, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-1812

LT Case No. 2020-CF-722

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed June 23, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Marion County, 

Lisa D. Herndon, Judge.

Matthew R. McLain, of McLain Law,

P.A., Longwood, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00364

- CV

T EXAS H EALTH H UGULEY , I NC ., D / B / A T EXAS H EALTH H UGULEY H OSPITAL F ORT W ORTH S OUTH , D R

. J ASON S EIDEN , J OHN D OES #1

- 5, AN D J ANE R OES #1

- 5

, Appellants

V

.

E RIN J ONES , I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS L EGAL R EPRESENTATIVE AND N EXT F RIEND OF J ASON J ONES , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 342nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 342

- 329996

- 21 )

Novembe r 1 8

, 2 021

Opinion by Chief Ju stice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s o rder . It is ordered that the order of the trial court is

reversed and va cated

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF A PPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Hill International, Inc.**

**Certification of Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**

I, John Fanelli III, Chief Financial Officer of Hill International Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hill International, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 coveredby this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial 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 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 thatmaterial 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 theeffectiveness 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 anannual 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 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 registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 controlover reporting. 

 

Dated: November 13, 2007
#### MONTE GLENN COFFMAN, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7820

December 27, 1974

529 P.2d 207

*James W. Johnson, Jr.,*and *Thomas L. Belaustegui,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*462
      *Rpbert List,*Attorney General, Carspn City; *Robert E. Rose,*District Attorney, and *Calvin R. Dunlap,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this appeal from an order denying a pretrial petition for habeas corpus, we believe evidence presented at the preliminary examination justified the magistrate’s determination that there was probable cause to hold appellant for trial. NRS 171.206. At this juncture we need not and do not decide whether such evidence would support a conviction. Cf. McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 512 P.2d 774 (1973).

Other contentions raised by appellant are also without merit. Cf. Laney v. State, 86 Nev. 173, 466 P.2d 666 (1970).
Order entered October 24, 2012 

In The 

Court of Ztppeat5 

jfiftb 313i5tritt of 1lexa5 at 1Daffa5 

No. 05-12-01103-CV 

NATIONSBUILDERS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Appellant 

V. 

HOUSTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, LTD., ET AL., Appellee 

On Appeal from the 134th District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 12-06111 

ORDER 

The Court has before it appellant's October 22, 2012 unopposed motion to seal redacted 

portions of appellant's brief on accelerated appeal of order vacating arbitration award. The 

Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to place the unredacted 

version of appellant's reply brief under seal.
# L_2007150EN.01001501.xml

| 12.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 150/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 150/15

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2007/400/CFSP

of 11 June 2007

terminating certain restrictive measures imposed against Liberia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 10 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/137/CFSP (1) concerning the restrictive measures imposed against Liberia in order to implement UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1521 (2003). These measures concern, inter alia, a prohibition on imports of all rough diamonds from Liberia to the Community. That prohibition was last extended for a further period of six months from 23 December 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 10 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/137/CFSP (1) concerning the restrictive measures imposed against Liberia in order to implement UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1521 (2003). These measures concern, inter alia, a prohibition on imports of all rough diamonds from Liberia to the Community. That prohibition was last extended for a further period of six months from 23 December 2006.

| (2) | On 27 April 2007, the UN Security Council adopted UNSCR 1753 (2007) terminating the measures on diamonds imposed by paragraph 6 of UNSCR 1521 (2003). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 27 April 2007, the UN Security Council adopted UNSCR 1753 (2007) terminating the measures on diamonds imposed by paragraph 6 of UNSCR 1521 (2003).

| (3) | The corresponding measures imposed by Common Position 2004/137/CFSP should therefore be terminated. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The corresponding measures imposed by Common Position 2004/137/CFSP should therefore be terminated.

| (4) | Action by the Community is needed in order to implement this Common Position, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Action by the Community is needed in order to implement this Common Position,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The measures imposed by Article 3 of Common Position 2004/137/CFSP shall no longer apply.

Article 2

This Common Position shall be reviewed in accordance with any relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council in the future.

Article 3

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption. It shall apply from 27 April 2007.

Article 4

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 11 June 2007.

For the Council

The President

H. SEEHOFER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 35. Common Position last modified and renewed by Common Position 2007/93/CFSP (OJ L 41, 13.2.2007, p. 17).

1

---