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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RETURN MAIL, INC.,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

UNITED STATES,

Appellees

______________________

2016-1502

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2014-

00116.

______________________

O R D E R

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued its opinion in Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 

No. 17-1594 (U.S. June 10, 2019), reversing our judgment 

and remanding the case to us for further proceedings. Consistent with that opinion, we vacate the Patent Trial and 
2 RETURN MAIL, INC. v. USPS

Appeal Board’s decision in CBM2014-00116, and remand 

to the Board to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This case is remanded to the Board with instructions 

to dismiss in light of the Supreme Court’s disposition.

 FOR THE COURT

 August 9, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 23.1




                            INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Pillowtex Corporation:



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.
33-65408, 33-84624 and 33-81478 on Forms S-8 of Pillowtex Corporation and
subsidiaries of our report dated February 6, 1997, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Pillowtex Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 30, 1995
and December 28, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 28, 1996, which report appears in the
December 28, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Pillowtex Corporation and
subsidiaries.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 14, 1997
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10810

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-62467-KMW

HEATHER CASTELLANOS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TARGET CORPORATION, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 17, 2014)

Before MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL,*

District Judge.

 *

 Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, 

sitting by designation.

Case: 13-10810 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

PER CURIAM:

Two issues are presented on appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict 

for plaintiff, in this diversity case, springing from a slip-and-fall at one of 

defendant’s stores. After hearing oral argument and after deliberation, we 

conclude that no reversible error is present.

About Defendant’s Renewed Motion for JMOL, we conclude that the record 

evidence -- viewed in plaintiff’s favor -- was sufficient for the verdict1

: evidence 

including the approximately two-foot size of the puddle of bleach, the distinctive 

odor of bleach, the presence of tracks not made by plaintiff or her husband through 

the puddle, and the proximity within about ten feet of the puddle of defendant’s 

employees.

About the exclusion of a purported expert’s opinion, we conclude that the 

trial judge did not abuse her discretion, especially given the expert’s broad lack of 

knowledge of the background and underpinning of the information in the DRG on 

which the expert relied considerably.2

AFFIRMED.

 1 Furthermore, no new trial was demanded.

2 We do not read State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 81 So.3d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 

2012) to demand admission of the proposed expert testimony in this case. Bowling seems to 

decide a materially different case. For example, Bowling seems to be about, to a significant 

degree, an argument that the medical services billed did not reflect medical services actually 

delivered according to the treatment records and not about mainly a conflict over the 

reasonableness of charges for medical services, assumed to have been delivered.

Case: 13-10810 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JEFFERY CHANDLER LEE, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00332-CR

Appeal from the

340th District Court

of Tom Green County, Texas 

(TC# C-15-0653-SB)

O R D E R

Appellant’s pro se motion for access to the appellate record is GRANTED. Therefore, it 

is ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, forward a paper copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s 

record, and any supplemental records, to the Warden of the Tulia Unit, 4000 Hwy 86 West, Tulia, 

Texas 79088. The record shall be made available to Appellant (TDCJ #02105050), under the 

supervision of the Law Librarian or designee, for his review and use in preparing a brief. Further, 

it is not necessary for the record to be returned to this Court and it may be destroyed by the Warden 

after Appellant has filed his brief. Further, the appellant’s brief is due on or before June 15, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Luther E. Proper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Luther E. Proper    |  | 
|    |  | Luther E. Proper        |  | 
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|    |  | May 9, 2007             |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares,
Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15610-15611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7212]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences (1204).
    Date and Time: April 10-11, 1995; 8:30 a.m. til 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
310, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Alvin Thaler, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone: (703) 306-
1880.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to National Science Foundation for 
financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Research Planning Grants and 
Career Advancement Awards for Women Scientists and Engineers 
proposals as part of the selection process for 
awards. [[Page 15611]] 
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7212 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33
[US CAN LETTERHEAD]
United States Can Company






                                  July 7, 1998




Mr. John Workman
870 Maryknoll Circle
Glen Ellyn, IL  60137

Dear John,

It is my pleasure to confirm our offer, and your acceptance, to join U.S. Can 
as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.  Following are the 
details of the offer:

BASE SALARY:    $300,000.00  Reviewed annually

SIGNING BONUS:  $ 60,000.00  Payable upon your joining the company.

BONUS ON 1/99:  $100,000.00  Payable 1/99
Future bonuses to be determined by revised compensation program, but will have a
target of 50% of base.

CAR ALLOWANCE:  $900.00 net per month

INITIAL STOCK OPTION AWARD:  75,000 options with the maximum number being 
incentive stock options that vest over three years -- one-third each year.

INCENTIVE TO PURCHASE STOCK: For every share of U.S. Can stock you purchase on
your own, up to $100,000.00, you will receive three stock option shares with a
strike price equal to the price you paid. These options vest immediately.

SEVERANCE OR CHANGE OF CONTROL: There will be a separate agreement with you that
will provide eighteen months of salary continuance in the event of severance
without cause or a change in control that results in severance, reductions in 
salary or benefits, reduced responsibility, etc.

OTHER:  You will receive all other benefits customary for company executive
officers.


<PAGE>   2


                                                        
                                      -2-


John, it's exciting having someone of your talents and drive joining us at 
U.S. Can.  We're going to have a lot of fun.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          UNITED STATES CAN COMPANY


                                          
                                          /s/ Paul W. Jones
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Paul W. Jones, Chairman,
                                          President & Chief Executive Officer



PWJ:sh
EXHIBIT 3(ii)(b)

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

TO THE BYLAWS OF

OPENLIMIT, INC.

Pursuant to the provisions of Title
XXXVI, Chapter 607.1020 of the Florida Statutes, the undersigned corporation, OPENLIMIT,
INC. adopts the following amendment to its Bylaws.

The following amendment to the Bylaws
dated June 8, 1998 was adopted unanimously by the board of directors and by a majority of
the stockholders of the corporation on September 19, 2003.

This amendment deletes Article 2
Section 7 Quorum of the Bylaws in its entirety, providing for a new Article 2
Section 7 Quorum, as set forth below.

Section 7. Quorum. Shares
entitled to vote as a separate voting group may take action on a matter at a meeting only
if a quorum of those shares exists with respect to that matter. Except as otherwise
provided in the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, shares representing thirty
three and one third percent (33 1/3%)of the votes pertaining to outstanding shares which
are entitled to be cast on the matter by the voting group constitute a quorum of that
voting group for action on that matter. If less than a quorum of shares is represented at
a meeting, the holders of a majority of the shares so represented may adjourn the meeting
from time to time. After a quorum has been established at any shareholders meeting,
the subsequent withdrawal of shareholders, so as to reduce the number of shares entitled
to vote at the meeting below the number required for a quorum, shall not affect the
validity of any action taken at the meeting or any adjournment thereof. Once a share is
represented for any purpose at a meeting, it is deemed present for quorum purposes for the
remainder of the meeting and for any adjournment of that meeting unless a new record date
is or must be set for that adjourned meeting.

The amended quorum requirement will
be effective on November 7, 2003 subsequent to the filing of an amendment to the Amended
Articles of Incorporation of Jure Holdings, Inc. with the Florida Secretary of State.

Dated September 19, 2003

/s/ Henry Dattler

Henry DattlerPresident
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16528-16529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7844]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1994 Rev., Supp. No. 14]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Redomestication and 
Name Change; The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island

    The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island, a Rhode Island 
corporation has redomesticated from the state of Rhode Island to the 
state of Connecticut and has formally changed its name to The Travelers 
Indemnity Company of Connecticut, both changes effective December 31, 
1994. The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal 
bonds at 59 FR 34180, July 1, 1994.

    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal 
bonds, dated today, is hereby issued under Sections 9304 to 9308 of 
Title 31 of the United States Code, to The Travelers Indemnity Company 
of Connecticut, Hartford, CT. This new Certificate replaces the 
Certificate of Authority issued to the Company under its former name. 
The underwriting limitation of $21,404,000 established for the Company 
as of July 1, 1994, remains unchanged until June 30, 1995.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified (31 CFR part 
223).
    A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, 
in the [[Page 16529]] Department Circular 570, which outlines details 
as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact 
surety business and other information. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1994 Revision, at page 34180 to reflect this change.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the Department 
of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds Management 
Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F04, 
Hyattsville, MD 20782, Telephone (202/FTS) 874-6696.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 95-7844 Filed 3-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
S. 4160 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

An Act 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the United 

States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive 

branches. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supreme Court Police Parity 

Act of 2022’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROTECT FAMILY MEMBERS. 

Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief 

Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme 

Court if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements listed on pages 2 and 3 of this Form 10-Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001060513
<NAME> PARAGON CORPORATE HOLDINGS INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,273
<SECURITIES>                                    20,365
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,470
<INVENTORY>                                     48,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,698
<PP&E>                                          21,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,420
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,766)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,502
<SALES>                                         63,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,368
<CGS>                                           40,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (29)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,455)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly  Report of B Green Innovations, Inc. Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.  	TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

2.  	Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

 

Date:        August22, 2014                                                             By: */s/ Jerome Mahoney*                                     

JeromeMahoney

President,Chief Executive Officer and

ChiefFinancial Officer
Outside Director Compensation Policy
  1.
    
    Each Outside Director will receive a cash retainer of $31,000 and equity having a
value of $38,000.2.
    
    The Outside Directors will not be paid for meeting fees for the first six Board
meetings occurring during the year, but will be paid a meeting fee of $1,000 in cash for
any additional Board meeting attended.*3.
    
    Each Outside Director serving on a committee of the Board will receive a cash
retainer of $5,000.4.
    
    Each Outside Director serving as the chairman of a committee will receive an
additional $5,000 in cash.5.
    
    Each Outside Director will receive a meeting fee of $1,000 in cash for each committee
meeting attended.*6.
    
    The new policy is effective as of July 1, 2009.
  
 *
    
    In calculating the amount of meeting fees, the following shall apply: 
    
    100% of regular fee shall be payable for in-person meetings regularly scheduled and
specially called by the Chairman at which business transacted/discussed and minutes taken.
    
    50% of regular fee shall be payable for regularly scheduled and specially called
mandatory telephone meetings at which business transacted/discussed and minutes taken;
provided that 100% of the regular fee shall be payable for any such telephonic meeting
that exceeds one hour.
#### Henry Lee ALVARADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 1365-91, 1366-91 and 1367-91.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Oct. 28, 1992.

Joe A. Cisneros, McAllen, Bill Barbisch, Austin, for appellant.

Rene Guerra, Dist. Atty., and Theodore C. Hake, Asst. Dist. Atty., Edinburg, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant in a consolidated trial of burglary of a habitation and two offenses of murder brought in three separate indictments, all three offenses occurring as part of the same criminal episode. Punishment was assessed by the jury at confinement for forty-five years and a $10,000.00 fine in the burglary conviction and confinement for sixty years in each of the murder cases. The convictions were affirmed. *Alvarado v. State,*816 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991). We granted Appellant’s petitions for discretionary review to determine if the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the cumulation orders contained in the judgments 1 were properly entered given the State’s failure to provide notice of intent to consolidate pursuant to V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 3.02(b).

The Court of Appeals, relying on *Caughorn v. State,*549 S.W.2d 196 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), held that the absence of a written notice of intent to consolidate by the State meant that the cases were not part of a single criminal action and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in cu-mulating the sentences. We disagree.

*443In *LaPorte v. State,*832 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), we addressed precisely the same issue. There we wrote:

> Therefore, we hold that a defendant is prosecuted in “a single criminal action” whenever allegations and evidence of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode, as that term is defined in Chapter 3, are presented in a single trial or plea proceeding, whether pursuant to one charging instrument or several, and the provisions of Section 3.03 then apply.

*Id.*at 599-600. We expressly overruled *Caughom. Id.*at 598-599.

Accordingly, the judgments in Cause Numbers CR-107-88-E and CR-113-88-E from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County are reformed to delete the cumulation orders. Further, the judgment in Cause Number CR-101-88-E is reformed to delete reference to the two causes formerly cumulated with it. The judgments of the Court of Appeals, as reformed, are affirmed.

1

. Appellant was convicted in three causes, bearing trial court cause numbers CR-101-88-E, CR-107-88-E and CR-113-88-E. In actuality only the latter two contain cumulation orders. However, the judgment in CR-101-88-E contains the following, "The sentences in CR-107-88-E and CR-113-88-E are to be served consecutively to this sentence."