alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

\' 

( 

Anton Purisima, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Andre McBride et al., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

filED 

JUN 1 9 2012 

Clerk, U.s. District 

Courts tor the Dist . & Bankruptcy 

net ot Columbia 

12 0990 

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and this action will be dismissed 

as time-barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal "at any time" of a complaint 

that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). 

Plaintiff, a resident ofNew York, New York, has submitted a complaint for personal 

injuries allegedly suffered on June 2, 2008, when plaintiff, while crossing the street in the 

District of Columbia, was allegedly hit by defendant on a motorcycle. Com pl. at 1. The instant 

complaint is based on the same events underlying the nearly identical complaint this Court 

dismissed on September 15, 2010, for plaintiffs failure to prosecute. See Compl., Purisima v. 

McBride, 09-cv-1 065 (RMU). 

Under District of Columbia law, a personal injury action must be brought within one or 

three years of its accrual, depending on the facts ofthe case. See D.C. Code§ 12-301(4), (8). 

Referring to the dismissed complaint, plaintiff states that "[t]his case is timely filed due to the 

underlying case was filed on June 1, 2009 within one (1) year from the incident on June 2, 
2008." 1 Compl. ~ 6. But "under District of Columbia law, the pendency of an action 

involuntarily dismissed [with or] without prejudice does not operate to toll the running ofthe 

statute oflimitations." Dupree v. Jefferson, 666 F.2d 606,611 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see accord 

Me lara v. China North Industries, Corp., 658 F. Supp. 2d 178, 181 (D.D.C. 2009) ("plaintiff 

cannot assert an equitable tolling defense based on the timely filing of a claim that was later 

dismissed without prejudice"). Since "the outermost limit" under the District's statute of 

limitations was three years from plaintiffs accrual date of June 2, 2008, Dupree, 666 F.2d at 611, 

the instant complaint received more than four years later on June 4, 2012, comes too late. See id. 

("In the case at bar, whatever the limitation period applicable, it was not arrested during 

pendency of appellant's first action which was involuntarily dismissed without prejudice for want 

of prosecution.") A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

f_(L- SHudL 

United States District Judge 

Date: June ~ h, 2012 

1 Plaintiff also asserts that the limitations period was "tolled in the related social security 

case filing ... in U.S.D.C., Southern District ofNew York wherein the incident (motorcycle) 

was part of the case therein." Compl. ~ 6. Even if true, this Court is not bound by the rulings of 

judges in the Southern District of New York. 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2104 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2104

                  To amend the Tax Reform Act of 1984.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2000

 Mr. Gramm (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison) introduced the following 
        bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
        FinanceYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To amend the Tax Reform Act of 1984.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL ARBITRAGE RULE FOR CERTAIN FUNDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 648 of the Tax Reform Act 
of 1984 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) such securities or obligations are held in a fund--
                    ``(A) which, except to the extent of the investment 
                earnings on such securities or obligations, cannot be 
                used, under State constitutional or statutory 
                restrictions continuously in effect since October 9, 
                1969, through the date of issue of the bond issue, to 
                pay debt service on the bond issue or to finance the 
                facilities that are to be financed with the proceeds of 
                the bonds, or
                    ``(B) the annual distributions from which cannot 
                exceed 7 percent of the average fair market value of 
                the assets held in such fund except to the extent 
                distributions are necessary to pay debt service on the 
                bond issue,''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of such section is amended 
by striking ``the investment earnings of'' and inserting 
``distributions from''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            2660
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             110
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  1000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      32407
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          36129
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (822)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   73970
<DEPOSITS>                                       65989
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                367
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2160
<OTHER-SE>                                        5278
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   73970
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2114
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1522
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   114
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3750
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1558
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2191
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    920
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       619
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.24
<LOANS-NON>                                        175
<LOANS-PAST>                                        77
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   820
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  822
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            149
        

</TABLE>
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

In connection with the quarterly report of B & D Food Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
Ollech, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

Dated:    November 21, 2005            By: /s/ Daniel Ollech
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Daniel Ollech
                                           President,  Chief Executive  Officer,
                                           Chief  Financial  Officer,  Treasurer
                                           and Secretary
* 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. 96-50596 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JERRY K. BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-96-CR-197-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bennett appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the magistrate’s denial of his motion to dismiss his information on the grounds of double jeopardy. This court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from a refusal to dismiss an information on the grounds of double jeopardy. United States v, Reyes , 87 F.3d 676 (5th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal and AFFIRM the district court’s orderNo. 96-50596 - 2 - for the reasons set forth by the district court. United States of America v. Bennett , No. SA-96-CR-197-1 (W.D. Tex. July 24, 1996). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 8.1  Subsidiaries of Registrant  Celestica Cayman Holdings 1 Limited, a Cayman Islands corporation;  Celestica Cayman Holdings 9 Limited, a Cayman Islands corporation;  Celestica (Dongguan-SSL) Technology Limited, a China corporation;  Celestica Electronics (S) Pte Ltd, a Singapore corporation;  Celestica Holdings Pte Limited, a Singapore corporation;  Celestica Hong Kong Limited, a Hong Kong corporation;  Celestica LLC, a Delaware, U.S. limited liability company;  Celestica (Suzhou) Technology Co. Ltd, a China corporation;  Celestica (Thailand) Limited, a Thailand corporation;  Celestica (USA) Inc., a Delaware, U.S. corporation;  Celestica (US Holdings) LLC, a Delaware, U.S. limited liability company; and  2480333 Ontario Inc., an Ontario, Canada corporation.
[ARTICLE] 5
[MULTIPLIER]   1,000
Part II.  Other information,   Item 6a.

                         APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                              ------------------- -------------------
                                              August 1, August 2, August 1, August 2,
                                              1997      1996      1997      1996
                                              --------- --------- --------- ---------
<S>                                           <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding       7,995     7,815     7,714     7,715

Common equivalent shares issuable under
   dilutive stock options after applying
   treasury stock method, net of tax benefits      522       247       572       186
                                              --------- --------- --------- ---------
Common and common equivalent shares used
   in computing net income per share             8,517     8,062     8,286     7,901
                                              ========= ========= ========= =========

Net income                                      $2,143    $1,135    $4,729    $1,364

Net income (loss) per share                      $0.25     $0.14     $0.57     $0.17



</TABLE>

(1)  Effect of assumed exercise of all dilutive stock options and assumed
      repurchase of shares from proceeds.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50417 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. KALUB DOYLE, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:95

- CR

- 104

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kalub Doyle, Jr., federal prisoner # 56795

- 079, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking modification of his sentence for possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed IFP, Doyle is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his appeal was not

* 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 3, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50417 Document: 00513293672 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2015No. 15

- 50417

2 taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Doyle argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a reduction of sentence. He contends that the district cour t did not meaningfully review his motion and considered only the facts of the case and his criminal history. Doyle also asserts that the court did not consider his eligibility for the reduction under Amendment 782. We review for abuse of
discretion a dis trict court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). In its order denying relief, t he district court recognized that Doyle was eligible for a sentence reduction. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817,
826

- 27 (2010). However, t he district court denied Doyle’s motion as a matter of discretion, referring specifically to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors of the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to provide adequate deterrence. The court also referenced Doyle’s criminal history in denying the motion. Doyle has not
sho wn that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a sentence
reduction. See United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).
This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Doyle’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Case: 15-50417 Document: 00513293672 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2015
No.-1,527.

#### WETZSTEIN, Appellant, *v.*BOSTON & MONTANA CONSOL. C. & S. MINING CO., Respondent.

*Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; John Lindsay, Judge.*

On motion to dismiss appeal.

Decided April 15, 1903.

*Messrs. Mel Fallon*A *Cotter,*for Appellant.

*Messrs. Forhis*A *Frans,*for Respondent.

Per CuriaM.

Upon motion of the appellant herein this appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellant.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10751]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuance

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to 
the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          License No.                         Name/address                            Date reissued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
011296N.......................  Master Air Cargo, Inc., 3900 NW. 79th    March 26, 2010.
                                 Avenue, Suite 236, Doral, FL 33166.
017843NF......................  Washington Movers, Inc., 7913 Cryden     March 28, 2010.
                                 Way, Forestville, MD 20747.
021331N.......................  Deseret Forwarding International, Inc.,  February 25, 2010.
                                 4105 Rio Bravo, Suite 100, El Paso, TX
                                 79902.
021896N.......................  Logistic Freight Forwarders, Group,      March 25, 2010.
                                 Inc., 7232 NW. 56th Street, Miami, FL
                                 33166.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing
[FR Doc. 2010-10751 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                      111491
<DEPRECIATION>                                6728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              518478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       121372
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     33788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  363318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                518478
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1350
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             37754
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (36404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (36404)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
**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**




In
      connection with the quarterly report of B&D Food Corp. (the “Company”) for
      the period ending September 30, 2007 on Form 10-QSB for the year ended
      December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      November 19, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Yaron Arbell, Chief Executive 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, as amended; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:
            /s/
                  Yaron Arbell**Yaron
                    Arbell****Chairman
                    of the Board, President and**
                  **Chief
                    Executive
                    Officer**




November
      19, 2007
No. 3,117.

#### STATE, Respondent, *v.*A. E. WHIPPS, Appellant.

*Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; Michael Donlan, Judge.*

Decided May 1, 1912.

*Messrs. J. L. Wines,*and *T. J. Harrington,*for Appellant.

*Mr. Albert J. Galen,*Attorney General, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the above-entitled cause be dismissed in accordance with motion of counsel for appellant.
(December 3, 1896.)

#### KANSTEINER v. CLYNE.

[46 Pac. 1019.]

Nonsuit. — Held, that the plaintiff established a *prima facie*case, and the court erred in granting nonsuit.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County.

F. S. Dietrich, for Appellant.

Even granting defendant’s contention ' that the property in «question was not exempt from execution against the plaintiffs husband, the ruling was still error. Under a claim of ownership the plaintiff had the actual possession of the property. As far as the proof goes, "it tends to show that defendant was, •and is, a naked trespasser who seized and detains the property without a shadow of justification. *(Kane v.*Desmond, 63 Cal. 464; *Bickersiaff v. Doub,*19 Cal. 107.)

Beeves *&*Terrell, for Bespondent.

No authorities cited on the point decided.

SULLIYAN, J.

This is a suit in replevin, brought to recover the possession of sixteen head of livestock (cattle), or their value, alleged to be $275, in case a recovery of the possession cannot be had, together with damages. The defendant admits the taking, and seeks to justify on the ground that Be, as constable, took said stock under and by virtue of an execution against the property of plaintiff’s husband. The judgment of the justice court was in favor of the defendant, and •an appeal was taken to the district court. The cause was tried *60in that court to a jury, and, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, on motion of defendant, a nonsuit was granted, and judgment entered against plaintiff. This appeal is from the judgment. The appellant specifies as error the granting of the motion for nonsuit and the entry of judgment of dismissal. The evidence of plaintiff shows that she was in the actual possession of the livestock mentioned in the complaint, and at least tends to' show that she is the owner thereof, and established a *prima facia*case. It was error to grant the nonsuit. The judgment, is reversed, and cause remanded for trial. Cost of appeal awarded to appellant.

Morgan, C. *J.,*and Huston, J., concur.