alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LIFE360, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1332

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 9:14-cv-80651-DMM, 

Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ALFRED ROSS FABRICANT, Brown Rudnick, LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented 

by PETER LAMBRIANAKOS. 

DANIEL H. BREAN, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, 

PA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by

KENT E. BALDAUF, JR., BRYAN P. CLARK, CHRISTIAN D.

EHRET. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and 

STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 March 20, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
# C_2011117EN.01001001.xml

| 15.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6133 — FSI/STMicroelectronics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 117/06

On 25 March 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6133. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6133. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
* 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. 01-11293

Summary Calendar

 

GARY HAMPTON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:00-CV-1726-A

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

September 24, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Hampton (“Hampton”), Texas state prisoner #776384,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition challenging his conviction for possession of

methamphetamine as time-barred. Hampton argues that the statute of

limitations period should be equitably tolled because due to a

malfunction of the prison’s postage scale, his state habeas

application was returned for insufficient postage. 
No. 01-11293

-2-

This court reviews a district court’s decision whether to

apply equitable tolling for abuse of discretion. See Fisher v.

Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 713 (5th Cir. 1999). The limitations period

may be equitably tolled, but only in “rare and exceptional

circumstances.” See Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 168, 170-171 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1035 (2000). When determining

whether the statute of limitations period should be equitably

tolled the prisoner carries the burden of proof. See Phillips v.

Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508, 511 (5th Cir. 2000), modified by Phillips

v. Donnelly, 223 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2000). Hampton has failed to

establish that he is entitled to equitable tolling because Hampton

has not shown that his state habeas application was returned on

January 13, 2000, for insufficient postage or that he re-mailed the

application on January 14, 2000, which would support his contention

that he re-mailed his state habeas application prior to the

expiration of the limitations period. 

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Hampton’s

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is AFFIRMED. 

Hampton’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is

DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees at Hanford in Richland, Washington, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition For the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

*Facility:*                         Hanford.                    

*Location:*                         Richland, Washington.                    

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                         All roving maintenance carpenters and apprentice carpenters who worked in the 100, 200, 300, and 400 Areas.                    

*Period of Employment:*                         April 25, 1967 through February 1, 1971.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV.*

Dated: February 22, 2007.

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 07-912 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3101

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael Todd Sneed, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 15, 2004 Filed: March 24, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Todd Sneed challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing 5 or more grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Sneed to 20 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. For reversal, Sneed argues the district court clearly erred in denying him a 2-level safety-valve reduction, and the court-2- abused its discretion in preventing the probation officer from testifying at sentencing about whether Sneed possessed any information unknown to the government. The district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction, because Sneed remained silent during his presentence interview when the probation officer asked him about relevant conduct outside the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5) (to receive safety-valve relief defendant must provide “Government all information and evidence” he has “concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan”); United States v. Gutierrez-Maldonado , 328 F.3d 1018, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (defendant not entitled to safety-valve relief where factual basis of guilty plea was limited to recitation of own actions about crime, and statements to probation officer were limited and incomplete); United States v. O’Dell , 204 F.3d 829, 838 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). Sneed had an obligation to provide the government with the information in his possession, see United States v. Ivester , 75 F.3d 182, 185-86 (4th Cir.) (safety-valve relief requires defendant to act affirmatively; defendant is not entitled to relief merely because government never sought him out for debriefing), cert. denied , 518 U.S. 1011 (1996), even if he believed that his codefendants had already provided the information, seeUnited States v. Acosta-Olivas , 71 F.3d 375, 377-79 (10th Cir. 1995) (safety-valve relief requires defendant to tell government “all he knows” even if his information would not be useful to government). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing the probation officer from testifying about whether Sneed possessed information unknown to the government, because we agree with the court that any such testimony would have been speculative. See United States v. Hill , 943 F.2d 873, 875 (8th Cir. 1991) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
|   | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 2, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: | February  17, 2011 |                         | By: | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS |
|   |        |                    | Kevin T. Michaels            |
|   |        |                    | Chief Financial Officer      |
|   |        |                    | Powerwave Technologies, Inc. |
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Open Joint Stock Company
Vimpel-Communications (the Company), does hereby certify to such officers knowledge that:

The Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 14, 2009



|       |  |                           
|------ |  | --------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Alexander Y. Torbakhov
|Name:  |  | Alexander Y. Torbakhov    
|Title: |  | General Director          

Date: May 14, 2009



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Boris Nemsic       
|Name:  |  | Boris Nemsic           
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 14, 2009



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Elena A. Shmatova  
|Name:  |  | Elena A. Shmatova      
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,135                   4,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,444                  76,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,225                     677
<INVENTORY>                                     76,923                  40,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,896                 123,017
<PP&E>                                          39,055                  23,766
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,671                   4,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 354,278                 247,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,687                  41,683
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,977                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,278                  97,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   354,278                 247,029
<SALES>                                        686,749                 313,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               686,749                 313,762
<CGS>                                          546,618                 246,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,537                  53,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (710)                   (227)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,773                   2,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,531                  11,319
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,393                   4,994
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,138                   6,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,138                   6,325
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .95                     .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93                     .65


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SCOTT CARSWELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv486-SPM/WCS

LISA ECHEVERRI, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING STATE OF FLORIDA’S RESPONSE AS TIMELY FILED

Upon consideration, Defendant State of Florida Department of Revenue’s

Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Transocean Defendants’ Motion to

Stay Proceedings Pending MDL Panel’s Transfer Ruling (doc. 48) is granted. 

The response (doc. 49) is accepted as timely filed.

SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 52 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sungro Minerals Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Mal Bains, President and Treasurer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company. 

| Date: July 15, 2008
 
/s/ Mal Bains
 
 
Mal Bains		President and Treasurer 		(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sungro Minerals Inc. and will be retained by Sungro Minerals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.] |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2011232EN.01000301.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/3

---

Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures

(2011/C 232/04)

On 6 July 2011, the General Court decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge Prek to replace the President of the General Court for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, for the period from 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012.

---
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Musician’s Exchange (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Van Ness, President and Principal Accounting 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:





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.











/s/Daniel Van NessDaniel Van NessPresident andPrincipal Accounting OfficerNovember 16, 2009
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 94-2471. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Kenneth ADAMS, a/k/a Christopher Hale, a/k/a Kenneth Gutheil, a/k/a Marvin Neighborgall; Judith Adams, a/k/a Jennifer Moore, a/k/a Theresa Cornell, a/k/a Judith Gutheil, Defendants-Appellees. March 2, 1995. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. (No. 93-225-CR-T-15C), Henry Lee Adams, Jr., Judge. Before BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: The Government challenges on this appeal the suppression of certain evidence seized in the search of a motor home at the time of the arrest of defendants Kenneth Adams and his wife Judith. We affirm. The search and subsequent seizure occurred at a time when state and federal law enforcement officers assembled to arrest defendants on numerous state and federal charges arising in part from the alleged fraudulent registration of two motor vehicles and the falsification of various identification documents. In a multi-count superseding indictment, the defendant and his wife were charged with, among other things, obtaining a driver's license by using a false Social Security number in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). We affirm the suppression of evidence in this case without reaching any broad issues that would help define the dichotomyconcerning the search of motor homes. The law regarding whether to apply to motor homes the established search and seizure principles applicable to motor vehicles, or those applicable to fixed places of residence has not been developed. This is not an appropriate case for setting any precedent in this regard. Reviewing the entire unusual circumstances and the peculiar factual situation in this case, we cannot hold that the district court erred in suppressing the evidence in this case. But for the implication that this decision might inadvertently be interpreted to carry some weight as this area of the law develops, we would have affirmed the judgment below under our Rule 36.1, Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday,  January 11, 2007. 

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters. 

# Contact Person For More Information:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-6248 Filed 12-26-07; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P