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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20906

Conference Calendar

 

ROGER O. MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RONALD W. KILLAM, DR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA H 95-1209

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roger O. Moore, #662174, contends that the district court

abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Dr. Ronald W. Killam as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). 

To prevail on a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that

the defendant deprived him of the right secured by the
No. 95-20906

- 2 -

Constitution and laws of the United States while acting under

color of state law. Manax v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808, 812 (5th 

Cir. 1988). Although Moore is now incarcerated for murdering his

wife, Moore’s allegations against Dr. Killam related to his

treatment by the physician prior to his incarceration. To the

extent that Moore asserted a medical malpractice claim against

his private physician, Dr. Killam, his § 1983 action was properly

dismissed by the district court. 

In his complaint and on appeal, Moore also asserts that Dr.

Killam did not release his medical records to his defense

attorney and altered the records resulting in prejudice to

Moore’s defense in the criminal trial for the murder of Moore’s

wife. “[C]ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for

challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgment.” Heck

v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). In order to recover

damages for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction or sentence invalid, the “plaintiff must

prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct

appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus.” Id. Even if Killam could be found to be a state actor

by conspiring to convict Moore wrongly, his claim against Killam

may not be considered in the § 1983 action under the rule in Heck

because Moore had not demonstrated that his conviction and
No. 95-20906

- 3 -

sentence have been invalidated. This appeal is without arguable

merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 219, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22351]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Deletion of Agenda Item From November 3, 
2005, Open Meeting

November 3, 2005.
    The following item has been deleted from the list of Agenda items 
scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, November 3, 2005, Open 
Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of Thursday, 
October 27, 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Item
  No.           Bureau                          Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3       Media................  Title: Digital Television Distributed
                                Transmission System Technologies.
                               Summary: The Commission will consider a
                                Clarification Order and Notice of
                                Proposed Rulemaking to clarify the
                                interim policy and propose rules for the
                                use of distributed transmission system
                                (``DTS'') technologies by digital
                                television stations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22351 Filed 11-4-05; 12:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 5 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 6 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 7 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 8 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 9 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 10 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 11 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 12 of 13Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 15 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14975-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 1 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 2 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 3 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 4 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 5 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 6 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 7 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 8 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 9 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 10 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 11 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 12 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 13 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 14 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 15 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 16 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 17 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 18 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 19 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 20 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 21 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 22 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 23 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 24 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 25 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 26 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 27 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 28 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 29 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 30 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 31 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 32 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 33 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 34 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 35 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 36 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 37 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 58 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 38 of 38
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          Year Ended

                                               -------------------------------
                                               June 28,    June 29,   June 30,
                                                 2002        2001       2000
                                               --------    --------   --------
<S>                                         <C>           <C>         <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations    $  (41,924)   $ (7,827)   $ 14,461
Gain from discontinued operations                    -         177       1,063
                                            -----------   ---------   --------
Net income (loss)                           $  (41,924)   $ (7,650)   $ 15,524
                                            ===========   =========   ========

Weighted average common shares outstanding      33,710      32,905      30,039
Common share equivalents                             -           -       3,929
                                            -----------   ---------   --------
Weighted average common shares and common
share equivalents                               33,710      32,905      33,968
                                            ===========   =========   ========

Net income (loss) per share-basic:

Continuing operations                       $    (1.24)   $  (0.24)   $   0.48
Discontinued operations                           0.00        0.01        0.04
                                            -----------   ---------   --------
Net income (loss)                           $    (1.24)   $  (0.23)   $   0.52
                                            ===========   =========   ========

Net income (loss) per share-diluted:

Continuing operations                       $    (1.24)   $  (0.24)   $   0.43
Discontinued operations                           0.00        0.01        0.03
                                            -----------   ---------   --------
Net income (loss)                           $    (1.24)   $  (0.23)   $   0.46
                                            ===========   =========   ========
</TABLE>

For fiscal years ended June 28, 2002 and June 29, 2001, common share equivalents
of 1,787 and 1,334 were excluded from the diluted net loss per share calculation
because they were antidilutive.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70080-70081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22928]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Mitochondrial Disorder.
    Date: December 9, 2005.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hotel Washington, Pennsylvania Ave. at 15th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20004.
    Contact Person: Norman Chang, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d1e151c131a133d101c141153131415531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe9d969f909990be939f9792d0909796d0999188">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 70081]]


    Dated: November 14, 2005.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22928 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR     Document 3      Filed 04/27/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR     Document 3      Filed 04/27/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03316-JSR     Document 3      Filed 04/27/2007     Page 3 of 3
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00282-CV

RALPH B. SMITH,

Appellant

v.

KIM JOHNSON, REC COORDINATOR,

Appellee

From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08-224-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ralph B. Smith, a prison inmate, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his lawsuit 

against a prison employee. Smith has not filed a brief in this appeal. By letter dated 

September 23, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified Smith that the Court may dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 21 days from the date of the letter, 

Smith filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. More than 21 days 

have passed, and Smith has not responded. 

Further, absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing 

fees at the time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to 
Smith v. Johnson Page 2

TEX. R. APP. P., Order Regarding Fees (September 1, 2007). See also TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 

10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b) (Vernon 2005). 

Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all 

unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b). 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 29, 2008

[CV06]
#### IN RE SMITH

No. 122 PC.

No. 38 (Fall Term).

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 123.

Petition by respondent for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 3 June 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 3 June 1980.
#### DAYS INN v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 47 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 636.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 May 1975.
#### Benjamin Robert TAYLOR, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-15995.

D.C. No. CV-02-01668-JAT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 13, 2005.

Benjamin Robert Taylor, Chino Valley, AZ, pro se.

Leo R. Montenegro, Esq., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Benjamin Robert Taylor appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision *904and review for substantial evidence the Commissioner’s findings. *Reddick v. Chafer,*157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision because the record submitted by Taylor’s acupuncturist was not based on objective medical findings, and could not establish that Taylor was disabled during the relevant period. *See Bunnell v. Sullivan,*947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). Because Taylor did not establish he was disabled through acceptable medical sources, his testimony was insufficient to establish his claim. *See id.*

All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION    EXTRACTED   FROM   THE   INTER-TEL,
                              INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                              FOR  THE  YEAR  ENDED  DECEMBER  31,  1995  AND IS
                              QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

                              ALL  INFORMATION  FOR THIS  PERIOD  IS THE SAME AS
                              PREVIOUSLY  STATED,  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NEW
                              EARNINGS PER SHARE REPORTING  REQUIREMENTS  (SHOWN
                              BELOW):
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          39,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,822
<INVENTORY>                                     20,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,139
<PP&E>                                          24,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,934
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,966
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,767
<SALES>                                        150,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,533
<CGS>                                           87,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,594
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,249
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,499
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,499
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11

IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months Ended
                                                 March 31,
                                           1997              1996
                                           -----            -----

PRIMARY
<S>                                     <C>            <C>
Average number of shares outstanding    11,340,789     11,337,956

Assumed exercise of stock options          323,844        243,644
                                      ------------   ------------

Total shares                            11,664,633     11,581,600
                                      ============   ============

Net income                              $5,196,276     $4,988,236
                                      ============   ============

Net income per share                         $0.45          $0.43
                                             =====          =====

FULLY DILUTED

Average number of shares outstanding    11,340,789     11,337,956

Assumed exercise of stock options
   (Note 1)                                323,844        247,976
                                      ------------   ------------

Total shares                            11,664,633     11,585,932
                                      ============   ============

Net income                              $5,196,276     $4,988,236
                                      ============   ============

Net income per share                         $0.45          $0.43
                                             =====          =====
</TABLE>
(1)  The dilutive effect of stock options is based on the
treasury stock method using the higher of the average market
price for the period or the period-end market price.

XXX Page 21 XXX
#### STATE v. RIDDLE

No. 80 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 34.

Petition by defendants Riddle and Smith for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss defendant Smith’s notice of appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 May 1980.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnulfo JIMENEZ-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50843.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Arnulfo Jimenez-Cruz raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and *614the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Michael J. McCann, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PHI, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for theperiod covered by such Report.Dated: March 10, 2006         By:                                                         /s/ Michael J. McCann    Michael J. McCann    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer