alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 19, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20755 Conference Calendar

SCOTT A. SAMFORD, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WARDEN C. S. STAPLES; R. CLEEVE, Correctional Officer V Extortion Officer; SERGEANT STEVENS, Gang Intelligence; SHELIA TORRES, Correctional Officer IV; D. JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-351

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Scott A. Samford, Jr., Texas prisoner # 835644, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. He argues that his complaint alleged a deprivation of property under the Due Process Clause. Where a prisoner alleges, as Samford does, that the random and unauthorized actions of a state officer deprived him of his property, due process is satisfied if state law provides anNo. 06-20755 -2- adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Sheppard v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole , 873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989). Texas has such a remedy. See Thompson v. Steele , 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 1983). Samford also asserts that the district court erred by refusing to allow him to add a defendant or engage in discovery and that prison officials deliberately and illegally destroyed his property. Samford has abandoned these claims by failing to brief them adequately. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Samford’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Harris v. Hegmann , 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). Samford’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH C IR . R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the § 1983 complaint and this dismissal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Samford is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                            PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE


<Table>
<Caption>
                                              May 3,             May 4,
(Thousands, except per share)                  2003               2002
                                             -------            -------
<S>                                          <C>                <C>
Basic Computation:
------------------

Net earnings                                 $14,091            $23,933
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                          67,986             67,241
                                             -------            -------

Basic earnings per share                     $  0.21            $  0.36
                                             =======            =======


Diluted Computation:
--------------------

Net earnings                                 $14,091            $23,933
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                          67,986             67,241
                                             -------            -------

Net effect of dilutive stock
  options based on the treasury
  stock method                                    96              1,164
                                             -------            -------

Outstanding shares for diluted
  earnings per share                          68,082             68,405
                                             =======            =======

Diluted earnings per share                   $  0.21            $  0.35
                                             =======            =======
</TABLE>


Note: Basic earnings per share are computed by dividing net earnings by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.
Diluted earnings per share include the effect of conversions of options.

                                       19
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





                          Independent Auditor's Consent


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Diametrics Medical, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-63689, 333-63687, 333-51951, 333-33257, 333-24169, 333-24167,
333-24079 and 33-83572) on Forms S-3 and S-8 of Diametrics Medical, Inc., of our
report dated February 2, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Diametrics Medical, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Diametrics Medical, Inc.



                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 30, 2001
#### SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. POLK COUNTY: G. C. FEAGAN, E. G. THOMPSON and W. J. SCREVEN, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF POLK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, and MAX H. FEAGAN, Treasurer and Tax Collector of POLK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

(Filed 24 September, 1947.)

Taxation § 38c—

Where the tax collector is also treasurer of the county, a written demand for the return of taxes paid to him under protest addressed to him in his capacity as tax collector without the appellation “treasurer” is a reasonable compliance with the statute, G. S., 105-267, and will support an action for the recovery of the taxes.

DEFENDANT’S appeal from *Pless, J.,*at January Term, 1947, of Pole.

*W. T. Joyner ancl Jones •& Ward for plaintiff, appellee.*

*J. T. Arledge and S.*(?. *Bernard for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff paid to Max H. Feagan, who is botb Tax Collector and Treasurer of Polk County, certain taxes under protest, and later demanded their return. G. S., 105-267. The written demand was addressed to “Max IT. Feagan, Tax Collector,” without the appellation, “Treasurer.” It is clear that the tax was illegal and if the demand had been made on Feagan as Treasurer its return would have been proper, and required by law. The only question in the case is whether the demand addressed as stated, is a valid compliance with the statute.

Looking at the reality of the situation the Court is of the opinion that the demand actually brought to the attention of Feagan as Treasurer the demand and the information required by the statute in reasonable compliance with its purpose; and that neither law nor equity is satisfied by withholding the funds.

The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6446]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary


Correction of Notice of Findings of Scientific Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: A Notice beginning on page 10588 in the issue of February 27, 
1995, entitled ``Findings of Scientific Misconduct'' is hereby 
reprinted in its entirety because of an omission in the original 
printing:
    Vivian N. Tanner, Cleveland Clinic Foundation: The Division of 
Research Investigations of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 
conducted an investigation into possible scientific misconduct on the 
part of Vivian N. Tanner while she was a clinic coordinator for the 
Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) at the Cleveland Clinic 
Foundation (CCF). ORI concluded that Ms. Tanner committed scientific 
misconduct by falsifying and fabricating clinical trial data on 
research data forms related to a multicenter study on the treatment of 
choroidal melanoma, a rare form of eye cancer. Due to these 
falsifications and fabrications, inaccurate clinical data were entered 
into the clinical trial database. These acts were committed over a 
period of several years, were material, and, therefore, were 
potentially detrimental to the study. The CCF COMS project has received 
U.S. Public Health Service support from 1985 to the present through 
subcontract funds from a National Eye Institute cooperative agreement 
award to the COMS Coordinating Center, The Wilmer Ophthalmological 
Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland. 
Ms. Tanner has been debarred from eligibility for and involvement in 
grants as well as other assistance awards and contracts from the 
Federal Government for a period of three years. Because the COMS is an 
ongoing study, no publications were affected by the falsified or 
fabricated data, and no clinical treatment has been based on the 
results of the study.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Director, Division of Research 
Investigations, Office of Research Integrity, 301-443-5330.
Lyle W. Bivens, Ph.D.,
Director, Office of Research Integrity.
[FR Doc. 95-6446 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-65688 and 33-98852) and in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-10949 
and 333-12435) of Molten Metal Technology, Inc. of our report dated May 23, 1997
appearing on page F-1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



Price Waterhouse LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
May 23, 1997
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00076-CR

ANTHONY J. SWEIGART,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-39-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals from a plea-bargained judgment of conviction and state-jail 

sentence of two years, after which he was placed on five-years’ probation (community 

supervision), which was revoked. The Clerk of this Court warned Appellant that 

because the trial court noted on the certification of defendant’s right of appeal that he 

had no right of appeal and Appellant had signed a waiver of his right to appeal, the 

Court might dismiss the appeal unless, within 21 days, we received a certification 

stating that Appellant has a right to appeal or a response was filed showing grounds for 
Sweigart v. State Page 2

continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Appellant has responded, but his response does not overcome his waiver of his 

right to appeal, nor has the trial court issued a new certification that permits Appellant 

to appeal. This appeal is dismissed. See Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680; Davis v. State, 205 

S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 27, 2011

Do not publish

[CR25]
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2587

Primex Family of Companies:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### Elvin A. Williams et al., Respondents, v J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated October 31, 1988, which denied its motion for a protective order vacating a notice to conduct a deposition served by the plaintiffs. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated February 9, 1989, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (CPLR 5517 [b]).

*525Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 1988, is dismissed as that order was superseded by the order dated February 9, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 9, 1989, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for a protective order (CPLR 3103). The courts have consistently encouraged liberal pretrial disclosure *(e.g., Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center,*60 NY2d 452, 461). The appellant should, if possible, produce a witness with knowledge as to whether it maintains any records which would be useful in determining whether any of its trucks might have been in the vicinity of the accident at the time in question.

We also see no improvident exercise of discretion with respect to the court’s failure to direct the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in producing a witness. If it is ultimately shown that the plaintiffs’ claim is without merit, then the appellant may seek to have the court award appropriate disbursements as part of the final judgment *(see,*CPLR 8301 [a] [12]; *Allied Excavating Corp. v Graves Equip. Co.,*99 AD2d 499). Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Davi Skin, Inc., a Nevada corporation,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Munjit Johal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following
pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/ Munjit
Johal


By:
Munjit Johal


Its:
Chief Financial Officer





May 20,
2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         3,590,458
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          982,528
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   1,526,783
<MORTGAGE>                                      45,314
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               6,469,076
<CASH>                                       1,803,530
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           2,016,756
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         812,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,321,383
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,550,300
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          2,629,282
<POLICY-OTHER>                               2,459,173
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              1,418,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,763
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,321,383
<PREMIUMS>                                   5,683,945
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            408,050
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             201,863
<OTHER-INCOME>                               1,475,991
<BENEFITS>                                   1,792,117
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  1,778,808
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         3,903,476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                170,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,520
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 99-1904 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL M. O'CONNELL, Defendant, Appellant.
ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on June 12, 2001, is amended as follows: On page 5, line 11, should read ". . . . In conclusion, O'Connell's attorney stated: . . ."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET & STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                       478
<INVENTORY>                                      4,434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,668
<PP&E>                                          10,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,425
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,507
<SALES>                                         44,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,576
<CGS>                                           16,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (754)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,004)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

TWEETER HOME ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tweeter Home Entertainment Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jeffrey S. Stone, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2002 and
results of operations of the Company for the three and nine months ended
December 31, 2002.

| |                                                        
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Stone                               
| |                                                        
| | Jeffrey S. Stone, President and Chief Executive Officer
| | February 14, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 32.3
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.
 /s/ Gerard H. SweeneyGerard H. SweeneyPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 9, 2008
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.