alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that t his o pinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________ No. 00-21109 Summary Calendar

___________________________ LEONARD PERRY, doing business as H W Security Co., Plaintiff - Appellant - Cross-Appellee,

VERSUS THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY; TED WALTERS, Defendants - Appellees - Cross-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-99-CV-1744) December 12, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1 Leonard Perry appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law setting aside the jury’s verdict in his favor on his Section 1983 claims against the Port of Houston Authority and Ted Walters. Perry contends that the Port of Houston Authority violated his substantive and procedural due process rights when the authority failed to award him a contract for security services on which he was the lowest bidder. We agree with the district court thatPerry has no property interest in being awarded the security contract sufficient to uphold his due

process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its Order dated October 26, 2000. The Port of Houston Authority cross-appeals the district court’s order requiring it, the prevailing party, to bear its own costs. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 54(d), except when provided otherwise by statute or rule, “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court directs otherwise.” Although the district court had broad discretion in determining whether to award costs to a prevailing party, Rule 54(d) creates a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded its costs. Wilson v. City of Plano, Texas , 160 F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir. 1998); Schwartz v. Folloder , 767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985). Our court has held that, when a district court declines to award costs to a prevailing party, it should state its reasons for doing so. Wilson at 212-13; Schwartz at 131-32. In this case the district court did not state reasons for requiring the Port of Houston Authority to bear its own costs. Accordingly, we remand the issue of costs to the district court for reconsideration. If the district court finds that the Port of Houston Authority is not entitled to costs, it should state its reasons for that decision. Judgment as a matter of law AFFIRMED; REMANDED for reconsideration of costs award.
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed August 27, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00369-CV

SATFRAZ TAJ AND ZUBEDA TAJ, Appellants

V.

HIGHLANDER COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INVESTMENT, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-02669-2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

This is an appeal from the trial court’s March 21, 2019 order denying appellant’s request 

for a temporary injunction. By notice filed August 15, 2019, appellee has informed the Court that 

a final judgment has been signed and prays the case be dismissed. Attached to the notice is the 

judgment, which has also been included in a supplemental clerk’s record. We construe the notice 

as a motion to dismiss and grant the motion.

The signing of a final judgment while an appeal of an order granting or denying a temporary 

injunction is pending moots the appeal. See Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology Grp., P.A., 802 

S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam). When an appeal from the denial of a temporary 

injunction becomes moot because a final judgment has been signed, we must set aside all previous 

trial court orders concerning the requested temporary injunction and dismiss the case. See id.
–2–

(citing Tex. Foundries, Inc. v. Int’l Moulders & Foundry Workers’ Union, 248 S.W.2d 460, 461 

(Tex. 1952). 

More than ten days have passed since appellee’s motion was filed, and appellants have not 

responded to the motion. Because the trial court has signed a final judgment and nothing before 

us reflects the appeal is not moot, we grant the motion, set aside the trial court’s order denying the 

request for a temporary injunction, and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Isuani, 802 

S.W.2d at 236.

190369F.P05

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SATFRAZ TAJ AND ZUBEDA TAJ, 

Appellants

No. 05-19-00369-CV V.

HIGHLANDER COMMUNITY 

SERVICES AND INVESTMENT, LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-02669-2018.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, Chief 

Justice Burns and Justice Molberg 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE the trial court’s order 

denying the request for temporary injunction and DISMISS the case.

We ORDER that appellee Highlander Community Services and Investment, LLC recover 

its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Satfraz Taj and Zubeda Taj.

Judgment entered this 27th day of August, 2019.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11807]

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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Closed to the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and 
Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, May 16, 1996 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor.)
STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open to the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes
Advisory Opinion 1996-12: Arthur Block on behalf of the Lenora B. 
Fulani for president '96 Committee
Advisory Opinion 1996-15: Marilyn Hughes, State of Oklahoma Ethics 
Commission
Administrative Matters

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155.
Marjorie W. Emmons,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-11807 Filed 5-7-96; 2:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
```
#### Barbara J. DUGGAN, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ST. CHARLES COUNTY, Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48543.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 12, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 31, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Lester W. Duggan, Jr., St. Charles, for appellant.

*556Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Gretchen Garrison-Hunter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Director of Revenue.

Thomas W. Rynard, Terry C. Alien, Craft, Fridkin & Rhyne, Jefferson City, Steven A. Martin, County Counselor, St. Charles, for St. Charles County.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Duggan appeals the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission denying her application for a refund of county sales taxes.

The decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 681 -CV De r r as e tt e We st br oo k , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s , Appellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 212, 847- B , HO NORAB LE RICKMO RRIS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an acc eler ated a ppeal f rom an orde r termin ati ng the par ental rig hts of Der rase tte Westbrook to her minor child, F.M. Westbrook’s c ourt-appointed attorney filed an An de rs brief c ontaining a professional evaluation of the rec ord and de monstrating that there are no arguable g rounds to be adva n ce don appea l. Se e An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel conc lud es t h at t he appe al is without merit. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs . Se e Tay lor v . Te x as De p’ t of Pr ote c tiv e & Re

gula to ry Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646-47 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n2 0 0 5 , p et . d en i ed ) ( ap p l yi n g Anders proce dure in a ppeal f rom termination of pare ntal rig hts).

A copy of counse l’s brief w as deliver ed to Westbrook, who was a dvised of her rig ht to examine the rec ord and to file a pro se brief. No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. After

revie wing the rec ord, we have found nothing that would arguably support an appe al, and we ag ree that the appe al2

is frivolous and without merit. We affirm the judgme nt of t he trial court and further g rant c ounsel’s m o t i o nt o w i th dr awa s a t t o r n e y.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: August 29, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11972]



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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 16


Review of Injurious Wildlife Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review of regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing 50 CFR Part 16 to 
determine to what extent it should be reinvented. 50 CFR Part 16 
addresses the importation or shipment of injurious wildlife. Applicable 
legislation will be reviewed, the process for identifying and listing 
injurious wildlife will be examined, and import restrictions will be 
evaluated.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed or sent by fax to the Chief, Division 
of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail Stop 840 ARLSQ, Washington, D.C. 
20240, or FAX (703) 358-2044.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Mangin, Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance at 
(703) 358-1718.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR Part 16 implements provisions of the 
Lacey Act of 1900 (18 U.S.C. 42). The Lacey Act restricts importation 
of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians that are deemed 
injurious to humans, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, wildlife, or 
wildlife resources of the United States. Interest has increased in 
preventing the introduction of harmful nonindigenous species. As 50 CFR 
is reinvented, alternatives to the current approach for implementing 
the Lacey Act will be considered. Specific comments from other Federal 
agencies, States, and the private sector are requested.

    Dated: May 6, 1996.
Bruce Blanchard,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11972 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         I, Yvon Leveille, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Adsero Corp.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have;

   (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;

   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

   (a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

   (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

             Date: May 10, 2006             /s/ Yvon Leveille
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Yvon Leveille
                                            Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of VisualMED Clinical Solutions Corp (the Company) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gerard Dab, Principal Executive Officer, Secretary and a member of the Board of Directors 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



| | /s/
        Gerard Dab
| | ----------------------
| | Name:                 
| | Title:                

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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 Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78r), as amended.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2
                            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 Annual Report of Q Comm International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael K. Openshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 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 and result of operations of the
Company.






/s/ Michael K. Openshaw
-----------------------------------
Michael K. Openshaw,
Chief Financial Officer

May 20, 2003
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement onForm S-8 (Nos. 333-136679, 333-128450, 333-118107, 333-118105, 333-118103, 333-109227, 333-104438, 333-99083, 333-91900, 333-75600, 333-70516, 333-12088, 333-9212, 333-08910 and 333-12944) and on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-12872 and 333-12956) ofAXA of our report dated June 20, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements,financial statement schedule, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which is incorporated on page F-1 of AXAs Annual Report on Form 20-F for theyear ended December 31, 2006.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit

|Michael P. Nelligan                             | Eric Dupont
|----------------------------------------------- | -----------
|Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
        June 20, 2007 |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5743 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5743

 To require the Secretary of the Interior to repay States for amounts 
expended by States to operate units of the National Park System during 
                         a Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2023

  Mr. Curtis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Interior to repay States for amounts 
expended by States to operate units of the National Park System during 
                         a Government shutdown.

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

SECTION 1. REPAYMENT OF STATE FUNDS USED TO OPERATE UNITS OF THE 
              NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM DURING A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

    (a) Definition of Government Shutdown.--In this section, the term 
``Government shutdown'' means a lapse in appropriations for 1 or more 
agencies of the Federal Government.
    (b) Repayment Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date on 
which a Government shutdown ends, on the request of a State that 
expended State funds to operate 1 or more units of the National Park 
System in the State during the Government shutdown, the Secretary of 
the Interior shall pay to that State an amount equal to the amount 
expended by the State to operate the 1 or more units of the National 
Park System in that State during the Government shutdown.
                                 <all>
```
2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d

S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s

for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-19-2011



# C a r le n H i g gs v

. Att y Ge n U S A

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 09-3128

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C a rle n H i ggs v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 424.

h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/424

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 09

- 3128

CARLEN URIEL HIGGS,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

( Agency No. A046

- 018

- 938 )

Present: FUEN TES

, FISHER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

Motion by Petitioner To Amend the Opinion Issued on 08/25/2011.

Respectfully,

Clerk/ pdb

____________________ _____________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is granted. The opinion shall be amended so that Ryan Christian is

omitted from the listing of petitioner’s counsel. Petitioner’s counsel shall be listed as

follows:

Thomas S. Jones, Esq.

Alison M. Kilmartin, Esq.

Jones Day 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500

Pittsburgh, P A 15219

Counsel for Petitioner

By the Court,

/s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Circuit Judge

Dated: September 19, 2011

PDB/cc: All Counsel of Record
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**NSBHOLDINGS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2005**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofNSB Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carol W. Soto, Chief Financial Officer,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  Tothe best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Tothe best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperation of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Carol W. Soto       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Carol W. Soto           |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----