alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent, County of Wayne, Michigan, Michigan Public Service Commission, Intervenors.

No. 19016.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 10, 1965.

Decided June 22, 1965.

Mr. Harry S. Littman, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Melvin Richter, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Peter H. Schiff, Atty., Federal Power Commission, with whom Messrs. Richard A. Solomon, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., and Abraham R. Spalter, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Commission, were on the brief, for respondent.

Mr. David R. Kaplan, Detroit, Mich., with whom Mr. Berl I. Bernhard, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for inter-venor, County of Wayne, Michigan.

Mr. Jerome Maslowski, Lansing, was on the brief for intervenor, Michigan Public Service Commission.

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy and Washington, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The prior history in this court of this case is found in City of Detroit, Michigan v. Federal Power Comm’n, 97 U.S. App.D.C. 260, 230 F.2d 810, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 829, 77 S.Ct. 34, 1 L.Ed.2d 48, and in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 94, 305 F.2d 763, cert. denied, 372 U.S. 916, 83 S.Ct. 719, 9 L.Ed.2d 722. The present petition is for review of orders of the Commission following our remand to the Commission by our judgment in the case last cited. We affirm the present orders as within the Commission’s authority validly exercised as a result of the proceedings upon the remand.

Affirmed.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 30043 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Cory Shane Disotell,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:19

- CR

- 126

- 1

Before **Clement, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Cory Shane Disotell appeals the 262

- month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). He

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be pu blished and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-30043 Document: 00515590969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2020No. 20

- 30043

2 argue s that the district court erred in denying him a two

- point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). “While the district court’s findings under the sentencing guidelines are generally reviewed for clear error,” a determination of whether a defendant is entitled t o a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 is reviewed “with even greater deference.” United States v. Buchanan , 485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). Under this standard, we will affirm the district court’s decision to deny a defendant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility unless that decision is “without foundation.” United States

v. Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Anderson , 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 1999))

. Disotell has not shown that the district court’s refusal to award him a
two

- level acceptance

- of

- responsibility reduction was without foundation when both his presentencing letter to the court and allocution at sentencing attempt ed to minimize his role in the offense, shift ed blame to the underage victim of his crime, and sought to mitigate his own conduct by falsely denying relevant underlying facts. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.3; Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d at 211; see also United States v. Angeles

- Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Medina

- Anicacio , 325 F.3d 638, 647

- 48 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-30043 Document: 00515590969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2020
#### PURDY v. BROWN

No. 243PA82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 792.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 13 July 1982.
#### STATE v. McINTYRE

No. 23 PC.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 479.

Petition by Attorney General for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 7 March 1972.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals withdrawn 15 March 1972.
# C_2011307EN.01000701.xml

| 19.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/7

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 307/06

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 11.5.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 11.5.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | WHB/8C3411 |
| Species | Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) |
| Zone | VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 887256 |

Date and time of closure

11.5.2011

Duration

11.5.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

WHB/8C3411

Species

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou)

Micromesistius poutassou

Zone

VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

887256

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
Case 1:07-cr-00365-AKH Document 15 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### BARRINGTON v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION

No. 110P82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 638.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982.
|EXHIBIT 32.1



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



Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as chief executive officer and chief financial officer, respectively,
of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (the Company), that the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 9, 2007
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By: /s/
Alfred R. Kahn     
Alfred R. Kahn      Chairman of the Board and      Chief Executive
Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: August 9, 2007
|--------------------

| | By: /s/
Bruce R. Foster     
Bruce R. Foster      Executive Vice President and      Chief Financial
Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and will
be retained by 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2012005EN.01001601.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/16

---

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 377 of 23 December 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 377 of 23 December 2011

2012/C 5/07

On page 9:

for:

| ‘Reference number of State Aid | SA.33076 (11/N)’, |
| --- | --- |

‘Reference number of State Aid

SA.33076 (11/N)’,

read:

| ‘Reference number of State Aid | SA.33706 (11/N)’. |
| --- | --- |

‘Reference number of State Aid

SA.33706 (11/N)’.

---
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 Annual Report of Energy Quest Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald Foster, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  March 30, 2011



/s/ Ronald FosterRonald Foster
Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LEVIETA DOSTER, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 5:10cv50-MCR/WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner, Social

Security Administration,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 19). The Plaintiff has previously been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made a de novo

determination of those portions to which an objection has been made.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant's motion for entry of judgment and remand, doc. 18, is GRANTED and

the Clerk shall enter final judgment REVERSING the Commissioner's decision to deny

benefits and REMAND the application to the Commissioner for rehearing pursuant to

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the purposes stated in the motion.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### STATE v. SUTTON

No. 82 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 371.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 24 January 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of .substantial constitutional question allowed 24 January 1978.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                              546,325 
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    18,894,122
<ALLOWANCES>                        499,168
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 38,358,809
<PP&E>                           95,849,749
<DEPRECIATION>                   53,801,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  102,764,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            19,973,912
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         14,183,493
<OTHER-SE>                        1,528,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    102,764,477
<SALES>                          30,872,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 30,872,196
<CGS>                            21,272,434
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    21,272,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  4,723,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  775,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,100,404
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,660,487
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               2,439,917
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      2,439,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.48
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JONATHAN LEE RICHES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00019-MP-AK

ELIN NORDEGREN, TIGER WOODS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Response to Order to Show Cause by Jonathan Lee

Riches, Doc. 6. Mr. Riches moves to withdraw the lawsuit voluntarily, claiming he never in fact

filed it and is the victim of identity theft. His claims are unpersuasive. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The request for voluntary dismissal in the Response, Doc. 6, is DENIED. 

2. The prior dismissal of this case as malicious and frivolous is affirmed. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20-8 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 20-8 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Extensity, Inc. on Forms S-8 (Files No. 333-45748 and 333-36338) of our
report dated January 19, 2001 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of the Company as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for the years
ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, which report is included in this 2000
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
March 8, 2001
# C_2011105EN.01001001.xml

| 5.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/10

---

Communication

2011/C 105/07

In accordance with Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994, the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic hereby submits for publication in the Official Journal of the European Union an application from the contracting entity Cuadrilla Morava s.r.o. for the establishment of an exploration area for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas deposits.

Official Journal of the European Union

The Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic has received an application from the contracting entity Cuadrilla Morava s.r.o. for the establishment of the ‘Meziříčí’ exploration area for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas deposits. This application was submitted in accordance with Act No 62/1988 on geological works, as amended. The application concerns an area of irregular polygonal shape, measuring 945,7 km2, in north-eastern Moravia. The area is demarcated by a line drawn approximately between the following settlements: Nový Jičín, Hranice, Lipník, Dřevohostice, Valašské Meziříčí, Vsetín, Halenkov, Velké Karlovice, Bumbálka, Prostřední Bečva, Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, Zašová, Hodslavice, Frenštát pod Radhoštěm, Tichá and Nový Jičín.

2

The contracting entity is applying for a four-year authorisation to explore the area, starting from the date of entry into force of the relevant decision. Competing applications for the establishment of an exploration area for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas deposits in the above mentioned area may be submitted, within 90 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, to the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic. Contact address: Martin Holý, Director of the Department for Protection of the Geological and Soil Environment, Vršovická 65, 100 10 Praha 10, Czech Republic.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
- Text121: 
    - Text122: 
    - Text124: 
    - Text125: 
    - Text126: 
    - Text127: 
    - Text128:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-4287SI

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Rickey Orville Benton, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: May 22, 1997

Filed: May 30, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Rickey Orville Benton, Jr. appeals his weapons-related conviction and guidelines

sentence. We affirm.

Benton's contention that the arresting officer improperly conducted a pat-down

search is without merit. Benton was stopped for a traffic offense. His car was

unlicensed. He had no driver's license. The stop occurred around midnight in a remote

area. The officer had no backup and was not acquainted with Benton. In these

circumstances, the officer conducted a pat-down search and found a derringer pistol in

Benton's pocket. Having reviewed the record, we conclude there was ample evidence
-2-

to support the district court's fact-findings and no error of law appears. The officer's

limited search was justified, and the search was conducted in a reasonable manner.

In challenging his sentence, Benton contends he was improperly sentenced as a

career offender because his state convictions for commercial burglaries are not crimes

of violence for career offender purposes. Benton's contention is foreclosed by our

recent decision in United States v. Hascall, 76 F.3d 902, 904-06 (8th Cir. 1996).

We thus affirm Benton's conviction and sentence.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
October 27, 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

S.L.A. STUDIO LAND, INC. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 01129

- CV V.
SRC CONSTRUCTION, IN C. AND SALVATORE R. CARABETTA , Appellees

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the orders on the special appearances in favor of appellees, SRC CONSTRUCTION, IN C. AND SALVATORE R. CARABETTA , signed August 12, 2010, which was made final by the severance order signed February 21, 2011,
was heard on the transc ript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

.
We order appellant, S.L.A. STUDIO LAND, INC. , to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WILLIAM H. LEMON, 

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent

______________________

2022-2200

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-0842-22-0006-I-1.

______________________

O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee 

required by Federal Circuit Rule 52 (a) (1) and to file the

required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is 

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the 

same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

October 18, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 18, 2022

Case: 22-2200 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 10/18/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         3,337
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                   371
<INVENTORY>                                    27,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               60,650
<PP&E>                                         28,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,124
<BONDS>                                        23,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2
<COMMON>                                       188
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,439
<SALES>                                        107,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  48,459
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               36,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                21,513
<INCOME-TAX>                                   8,172
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,341
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,341
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .66





</TABLE>