alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00501-CR

Frederick Parker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR21653, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Frederick Parker pleaded guilty before a jury to aggravated robbery. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003). The jury assessed his punishment, enhanced by a

previous felony conviction, at thirty years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: June 6, 2008

Do Not Publish
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5659 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the payment 

of recovery rebates on the basis of tax returns for 2007 notwithstanding 

the limitation on timing of payments where necessary to correct a manifest injustice. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2010 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the payment of recovery rebates on the basis of 

tax returns for 2007 notwithstanding the limitation on 

timing of payments where necessary to correct a manifest 

injustice. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5659 IH

1 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF RECOVERY REBATES BASED ON 

2 2007 RETURNS NOTWITHSTANDING LIMITA3 TION ON TIMING OF PAYMENTS TO CORRECT 

4 MANIFEST INJUSTICE. 

5 Paragraph (3) of section 6428(g) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘2008.’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘2008, unless the Secretary determines paying 

8 such refund or credit is necessary to correct a manifest 

9 injustice.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
# Exhibit 32.1

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely for the purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the Company), hereby
certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|Erroll B. Davis, Jr.                                       
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                       
|                                                           
|/s/ Eliot G. Protsch                                       
|Eliot G. Protsch                                           
|Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

August 6, 2004
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KASIM McDONALD, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4946

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K.

Fernandez, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Matthews, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004); Golden v. 

State, 870 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Cooper v. State, 902 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2005); Kenon v. State, 780 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5463 

To rename the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, 

Nebraska, as the Homestead National Historical Park. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 28, 2010 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To rename the Homestead National Monument of America 

near Beatrice, Nebraska, as the Homestead National 

Historical Park. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HOMESTEAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK. 

4 (a) RENAMING.—The unit of the National Park Sys5 tem known as the Homestead National Monument of 

6 America and located near Beatrice, Nebraska, shall be 

7 known as the ‘‘Homestead National Historical Park’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the unit of the National Park System know as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5463 IH

1 the Homestead National Monument of America shall be 

2 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Homestead National His3 torical Park’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, FOUR MILE STATION 

POST OFFICE, Racine, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0741

Issued: October 25, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 11, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 14, 2022 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0741.

In a letter dated September 21, 2022 and received September 26, 2022, appellant 

requested that the appeal be withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0741 is dismissed.

Issued: October 25, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### Alfredo PALOMINO OCHOA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 04-70346, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Nadeem H. Makada, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Alfredo Palomino Ochoa, his wife Josefina Moreno Palomino, and their son Freddy Palomino, all natives and citizens of Mexi*875co, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. *Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners requested that the Board reopen and remand their case to the immigration judge for consideration of new evidence of medical hardship relevant to their applications for cancellation of removal. They contend that the Board denied them due process by failing to consider the availability of medical services in Mexico on an individual basis. We disagree.

The Board acted within its broad discretion in concluding that petitioners’ new evidence was not sufficient to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (explaining that the Board may deny a motion to reopen if “the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought.”). Moreover, contrary to petitioners’ contention, the Board considered the individual facts of their case, and concluded that the evidence they submitted failed to demonstrate that the medicines and services their children need to treat their asthma are not available in Mexico. Accordingly, the Board’s denial of relief did not deprive petitioners of due process. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) (explaining that petitioners bear the burden of establishing that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### APOTEX INC. (formerly known as TorPharm, Inc.) and Apotex Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PFIZER INC. and Warner-Lambert Company (now known as Warner-Lambert Company LLC), DefendantsAppellees.

No. 04-1463.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: April 11, 2005.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively “Apotex”) appeal the judgment of the district court, which dismissed Apotex’s declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction. *Torpharm, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.,*No. 03-CV-990, 2004 WL 1465756 (D.Del. June 28, 2004). Because Apotex’s appeal is moot, we *vacate*and *remand*with instructions to *dismiss.*

Less than one week before oral argument, Pfizer covenanted not to sue Apotex for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,743,-450. A covenant not to sue, such as that provided by Pfizer, moots an action for declaratory judgment. *See Amana Refrigeration, Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc.,*172 F.3d 852, 855 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“[A] covenant not to sue ... is sufficient to divest a trial court of jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action.”). As a result, the judgment and opinion of the district court are vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. *See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship,*513 U.S. 18, 23, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (“[V]acatur must be granted where mootness results from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.”); *Najjar v. Ashcroft,*273 F.3d 1330, 1340 (11th Cir.2001); *Mayfield v. Dalton,*109 *F.Sd*1423, 1427 (9th Cir.1997).

COSTS

Apotex shall have its costs.
----

----

**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION****Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350****AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report ofStrategic Internet Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I, AbbasSalih, Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge and belief:

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |              |   |                            |
|--------|-------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
| Date:  | December 13, 2013 |   | /s/ Abbas Salih                 |
|   |              |   | Abbas Salih, Director, CEO, CFO |

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MUKWONAGO POST 

OFFICE, Mukwonago, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0934

Issued: January 30, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On June 26, 2023 the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket No. 

23-0934 to a purported appeal from a decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP). 

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that the appeal was filed by a health 

care provider in an effort to secure payment of medical expenses. Section 501.3(a) of the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure provides that only a “person adversely affected by a final decision of the 

Director [of OWCP] or his or her authorized Representative, may file an appeal of such decision 

by the Board.”

1

 Here, neither a “person adversely affected” by a final OWCP decision, nor an 

“authorized Representative,” has filed an appeal to the Board. As such, there is no valid appeal 

before the Board and Docket No. 23-0934 must be dismissed.2 Accordingly, 

1

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(a).

2 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.”

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0934 is dismissed.

Issued: January 30, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Skip to page content United States Department of Labor
 All DOL
											ILAB
											Advanced Search
 A to Z Site Map FAQs Forms About DOL Contact Us Español
 DOL Home ILAB ICLRE
 Prevalence and Conditions (PC) Study in Nepal Home
Research
Evaluations
Contact OCFT
 
 
 In 2007, ICF was contracted by OCFT to conduct research on child labor in the carpet industry in Nepal as part of a three-country project: "Research on Children Working in the Carpet Industry of India, Nepal, and Pakistan." The primary objective of the project was to develop reliable, statistically sound and nationally representative estimates of the prevalence of working children and the prevalence and nature of child labor, as well as detailed descriptions of children's working conditions in the production process of the national carpet industries.  In Nepal, research was carried out in 2008-2009 with a geographic focus on the Kathmandu Valley. The survey methodology included preliminary qualitative research, development of a national sampling frame, and a large-scale cross-sectional sample survey of factory-based and household-based production. The Study estimated that 714 factories and 15,847 households were engaged in Nepal's carpet industry, employing a total of 49,538 workers in the 12 months preceding the survey, of which 10,907 were children. Most (80.2 percent) of the children working in the carpet industry in Nepal were working in households. Almost all children working in households (93.9 percent) were living with their parents, and more than four-fifths (86.8 percent) were girls. Factory-based children were mostly migrants (95.7%) from neighboring districts. Most (85.2 percent) were not living with their parents, and the majority (58.7 percent) were girls. Nepal's Child Labor Act identifies carpet weaving and wool processing as hazardous occupations. All (100 percent) children working in the carpet industry in Nepal were engaged in hazardous work based on international standards. In addition, all children (100 percent) reported being exposed to some hazardous agent or process and more than half (51.9 percent) showed indications of working excessive hours. The Study showed clear indications of forced or bonded labor, as well as indications of child trafficking among factory-based child carpet workers. A conservative estimate was that at least 7.8 percent of the factory-based child carpet workers showed indications of trafficking, although there were no indications of forced or bonded labor or child trafficking among children working in household-based production.  Get Report
							Get Dataset
 Countries
Afghanistan
Angola
Haiti
Nigeria
Paraguay
Peru
RwandaCarpet Industry

Summary Report of the Carpet Research ProjectIndia
Prevalence and Conditions (PC) StudyNepal
Prevalence and Conditions (PC) Study
Sending Areas (SA) Study
Schooling Incentives Project Evaluation (SIPE) StudyPakistan
Prevalence and Conditions (PC) StudyIndia, Nepal, and Pakistan
The Labor Demand (LD) Study
The Programs And Practices Review (PPR)
 Freedom of Information Act Privacy & Security Statement Disclaimers Important Web Site Notices Plug-ins Used by DOL
 www.dol.gov TTY Contact Us
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 9, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60296 Conference Calendar

HENRY C. PAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, Commissioner; E. L. SPARKMAN, Superintendent; JOHN BEARRY, Dr., MSP Medical Director; LARRY HARDY, Legal Claims Adjudicator, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:03-CV-126

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Henry C. Payton, Mississippi inmate # 65110, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Payton has filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and/or in the alternative, for a Temporary Restraining Order. Payton asks this court to enjoin the Mississippi Department of Corrections from moving him to another prison unit in retaliation for his filing the instant lawsuit. Payton’sNo. 03-60296 -2- motion is DENIED. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior
Court , 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973). Payton argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Payton’s allegation that prison officials were negligent for failing to place slip guards and guard rails in the showers where he is housed fails to state a claim because a claim for negligence does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Payton’s allegation that prison officials failed to provide adequate medical treatment fails to state a claim because mere dissatisfaction with medical treatment does not rise to a constitutional violation. See id. Last, Payton’s allegation that prison officials failed to comply with Mississippi state law when they overcharged him for medical treatment he received fails to state a claim inasmuch as a prison official’s failure to follow state regulations does not establish a constitutional violation. See Jackson v. Cain , 864 F.2d 1235, 1251-52 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court’s dismissal of the present case and this court’s affirmance of the dismissal count as one strike against Payton for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Payton is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes he will be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appealNo. 03-60296 -3- filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
#### Universal Credit Company, Respondent, *v.*Simon Blinderman, Appellant, Impleaded with “John Doe,” Fictitious, etc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 19, 1936.

*Isaiah Sorrin,*for the appellant.

*Goodman & Werner [Emanuel Goodman*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

There being no general appearance in the action by defendant-appellant, and no summons served upon him, the court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment either *in rem*or *in personam.*

There is no obligation imposed by law upon the owner of a garage, in which an automobile is stored, to deliver to the car owner a purported summons, warrant of seizure and other accompanying papers delivered by a city marshal. In the absence, as here, of proof of such a contractual obligation, neither the owner of the *803garage nor the manager can be held to be the agent of the owner of the car for the purpose of service. By such delivery of the seizure papers to the garage owner or his manager, the court may acquire jurisdiction of the thing seized; but due notice, by service of the summons upon the owner, must be made before the jurisdiction is perfected and the owner divested of his title and cast in judgment. More than thirty days (about nineteen months) having elapsed without service of summons, the motion to vacate should have been granted.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion to vacate granted, with ten dollars costs, and judgment and warrant of seizure vacated.

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammer and Callahan, JJ.