alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1418

___________

Aldifonso Federico Gonzales, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 1, 2011 

Filed: November 16, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2671 et seq., Aldifonso Gonzales, Jr. appeals the district court’s order granting 1

summary judgment for theUnitedStates and denying his motion to compel discovery.

We affirm.

The Honorable D. Price Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.
While a Bureau of Prisons inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute at

Forrest City, Gonzales was assaulted by other inmates and sustained numerous

injuries. He alleged the assault resulted from the negligence of the officer on duty in

his housing unit on the evening in question, because the assigned officer did not

prevent inmates who were not assigned to the unit from entering the unit.

Upon de novo review, we conclude summary judgment was proper. See

Oppliger v. United States, 637 F.3d 889, 892 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). 

We agree with the district court that the assigned officer’s conduct fell within the

discretionary-function exception to the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)

(discretionary-function exception to FTCA precludes government liability for claims

based on government’s exercise or failure to exercise discretionary function); Hart

v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (discretionary-function

exception applies when conduct at issue was discretionary and was based on

considerations of public policy). None of the statutes, regulations, or policies

Gonzales identified required the assigned officer to ensure that no non-resident

inmate entered the housing unit, and the United States provided evidence that there

was no such affirmative requirement, and that policy considerations made such a

requirement impracticable.

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Gonzales’s motion to compel further discovery. See Kilpatrick v. King, 499 F.3d

759, 766 (8th Cir. 2007) (denial of motion to compel discovery reviewed for gross

abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm.

__________________________________

-2-
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29975-29976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1679]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 272; Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 272, submitted an application to the 
Board for authority to expand FTZ 272 to include a site in Bethlehem, 
Pennsylvania, adjacent to the Philadelphia Customs and Border 
Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 37-2009, filed 9/9/2009);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 47920-47921, September 18, 2009) and the 
application

[[Page 29976]]

has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
The application to expand FTZ 272 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and to the 
Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-
purpose zone project, and further subject to a sunset provision that 
would terminate authority on May 31, 2017 for Site 9 if no activity has 
occurred under FTZ procedures before that date.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of May 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12958 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Henry Lupton, Appellant, v. Thomas W Patterson, Respondent.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

February 11, 2015

03-14-00715-CV

C-1-CV-14-008244

Eue Jin Jeong et al vs. Texas Greenovation

I have received the notice for the above styled case. As of

today I have not received a request for the court reporter's

record in this case.

Please contact me if you have any further questions.

Thank you,

Amanda Anderson, CSR

Official Court Reporter

County Court at Law No. 2

Travis County, Texas

1000 Guadalupe St., Rm 211

Austin, Texas 78701

512 854-9250

FAX: 512 854-4724
#### Thomas Gleason and Elizabeth M. Gleason v. Aaron M. McKay.

*Agency—Sale of Beal Estate—-Commissions—Becovery*of—Evidence— *Instructions—Practice.*

A principal can not, in the midst of negotiations which the efforts of his agent have set in motion, and which result in a sale of real estate, withdraw the agency from the broker and' thereby deprive him of his commission.

[Opinion filed December 11, 1890.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.

Mr. C. B. Eyer, for appellants.

Mr. M. Salomon, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal from a judgment for $231.75, recovered by appellee against appellants for commission for the sale of certain real estate belonging to said appellant Elizabeth M. Gleason.

Thomas Gleason, the husband of Elizabeth, placed the. property in the hands of appellee to sell, and appellee called the attention of the person who subsequently purchased the property to it, and caused him to go and look at it. Thomas Gleason did not state when he gave appellee a description of the property that it belonged to his wife. After negotiations by the purchaser had commenced, said Thomas Gleason sent a notice to appellee, withdrawing the property from sale. We have considered the points urged for the reversal of the judgment, and find none of them well taken. The complaint made that the court did not give appellants’ instruction relating to Gleason’s right to withdraw the property from sale by appellee, is not well founded. The principal can not, while in the very midst of a negotiation which the efforts of the *465agent has set in motion, and which results in a *sale*of the property, withdraw the agency from the broker and thereby deprive him of his commission.

It is urged that if Gleason was the agent of his wife, they could not be jointly liable for the commissions. This question of the joint liability was not raised in any appropriate manner in the court below. Plaintiff was not bound to prove a joint contract in the first instance, but the jury were authorized to find a joint liability from the evidence introduced on his behalf.

If appellants desired to raise the question of joint liability on their proof, an instruction should have been asked on the points

We think the judgment right on the merits; we are not disposed to regard minute technicalities.

There is no error and the judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OC11
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OC11


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
* 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. 06-20748

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUGO ISRAEL MORALES, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-57-3

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Hugo Israel Morales, Jr., appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy and attempting to conceal, harbor, or

shield from detection aliens who had entered the United States illegally, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). The sole issue raised by

Morales on appeal is whether the district court plainly erred in applying a fourlevel increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) based on Morales’s role in the

offense. Morales argues that the evidence showed that he “only directed the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-20748

2

activities of undercover law enforcement agents” and did not recruit or supervise

lower level participants. Morales also argues that the presentence investigation

report(PSR) improperly recommended the enhancement based on evidence that

Morales “exercised management responsibility over the payment of

transportation fees.” Morales asserts that the district court’s error affected his

substantial rights because in the absence of the erroneously applied

enhancement, his guidelines range of imprisonment would have been 18 to 24

months.

Although this court normally reviews a district court’s finding concerning

a defendant’s role in the offense for clear error, because Morales failed to raise

any objection to the enhancement in district court, review is for plain error. See

United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 828-29 (5th Cir. 1995). “As a general

rule, information in the pre-sentence report is presumed reliable and may be

adopted by the district court without further inquiry if the defendant fails to

demonstrate by competent rebuttal evidence that the information is materially

untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” United States v. Carbajal, 290 F.3d 277, 287

(5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The evidence presented in the PSR demonstrates that Morales directed at

least one other individual who was not a law enforcement agent. The district

court did not impose the enhancement based solely on Morales’s management

over the payment of transportation fees. Because Morales adduced no evidence

to rebut the PSR, the district court was free to adopt the PSR and to rely on the

factual findings contained therein. See United States v. Ramirez, 367 F.3d 274,

277 (5th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in imposing a four-level

enhancement under § 3B1.1(a) based on Morales’s role in the offense.

AFFIRMED.
#### SILAS FRIZZELL v. SOUTHERN MICA COMPANY and ALBERT RABY.

(Filed 18 December, 1929.)

Removal of Causes C b — Mere denial of allegations upon which action is founded is insufficient to show fraudulent joinder.

Where it is alleged in the complaint that the resident defendant was employed by bis codefendant as a foreman, and that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the joint tort of the defendants, and the allegation that the resident defendant was an employee of his codefendant is not denied in the petition for removal, a mere denial of the allegations upon which the cause of action is founded is not sufficient to sustain the contention that the joinder of the resident defendant was fraudulent, and the petition for removal of the cause from the State to the Federal Court is properly denied.

Appeal by defendant, Southern Mica Company, from *McElroy, J.,*at May Term, 1929, of JacksoN.

Affirmed.

This action was heard upon plaintiff’s appeal from the order of the clerk of the Superior Court of Jackson County, that the action be removed from said Superior Court to the District Court of the United *129States for the Western District of North Carolina, for trial, in accordance with the prayer in the petition of the defendant, Southern Mica Company.

From order overruling the order of the clerk, and denying the prayer of its petition, the defendant, Southern Mica Company, appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Doyle D. Alley and Alley & Alley for plaintiff.*

*A. Sail Johnston for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

It is alleged in the complaint, and not controverted in the petition for removal that the defendant, Albert Raby, a resident of this State, at the date of plaintiff’s injury, was employed by his co-defendant, a nonresident corporation, as a foreman in its mine in Macon County, North Carolina. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the joint tort of the defendant. The allegations of the complaint upon which the cause of action is founded are controverted in the petition for removal. This is not sufficient to sustain the contention that the joinder of the resident defendant with the nonresident was fraudulent. *Hurt v. Mfg. Co., ante,*1.

The order denying the prayer for the removal of the action from the State Court to the Federal Court is affirmed upon the authority of *Feaster v. McLelland Stores Company, ante,*31; *Givens v. Manufacturing Company,*196 N. C., 377, 145 S. E., 681; *Swain v. Cooperage Co.,*189 N. C., 528, 127 S. E., 538.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Cadmus Communications Corporation, certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2005, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Cadmus Communications Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and
shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                                      |  |                                                  
|------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce V. Thomas                   |  | /s/ Paul K. Suijk                                
|Bruce V. Thomas                       |  | Paul K. Suijk                                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)         |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)     
|                                      | 
|May 12, 2005                          |  | May 12, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION


of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


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 on Form 10-K of SmartHeat Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jun Wang, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.







By: 
/s/ Jun Wang


Name: Jun
Wang


Title:
Chief Executive Officer


(Principle Executive
Officer)




Date: 
May 4, 2009





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 29759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12541]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

    Summary: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-
181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its 
programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
    Time and Place: Monday, June 7, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 
811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a focus on the congressionally 
mandated Competitiveness Report, which focuses on how Ex-Im Bank's 
programs compare with their major G-7 ECA counterparts during 2009.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a 
photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance 
process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be 
placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such 
as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to June 2, 2010, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3232 or e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#661513150708480e091315031426031e0f0b48010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="74070107151a5a1c1b0107110634110c1d195a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Further Information: For further information, contact Susan Houser, 
Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.

Jonathan Cordone,
Senior President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-12541 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Maurice Kelly, Appellant, v. The Pelham Hod Elevating Company, Respondent.

— Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
#### Village of Flushing, Respondent, v. Patrick Carraher, Appellant.

Motion for leave to go to the Court, pf Appeals denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

h1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

144921

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144921

COA: 306152

Wayne CC: 07

- 007396

- FC

DARRYL LAMONT SENSELY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2012

order of the Court of Appea ls is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT A

COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2859-1 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 14:20:13 Page 1

of 2
Exhibit A

Proceeding Number Proceeding Parties

1 C.17-09-001

Martinez Masonic Temple Association, Complainant vs. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E), Defendant.

2 C.18-01-008

Jennifer Vera Gutierrez, Complainant vs. Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (U39E), Defendant.

3 C.18-02-003

Michael Coltan, Complainant vs. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (U39E), Defendant.

4 C.18-11-012

Brookview MHP Investors, LLC, dba Thunderbird Mobile 

Home Park, Complainant, vs. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (U39E), Defendant 

5 C.19-01-008

Steven Pelly and Barbara Pelly, Complainants vs. Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company (U39E), Defendant. 

6 C.19-01-013

Victor Packing Inc., Complainant vs. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (U39E), Defendant.

7 C.19-04-012

Nicola Diolaiti, Complainant vs. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (U39E), Defendant.

8 C.19-04-019

David E. Cannon, Complainant vs Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (U39E), Defendant .

9 C.19-04-020

Judy Ann Ahmann and John Eugene Ahmann, 

Complainant(s) vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (U39E), 

Defendant.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2859-1 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 14:20:13 Page 2 1 of 1

of 2