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

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2991

___________

Connie Sloan, Special Administrator *

of the Estate of Kevin Sloan, Deceased, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 21, 2000

 Filed: March 27, 2000

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Air Force Sergeant Kevin Sloan underwent elective jaw surgery at the Offutt Air

Force Base hospital on the morning of September 30, 1997. He suffered tragic

complications in the recovery room and was brain dead that evening. Further treatment

at the University of Nebraska Medical Center was unsuccessful, and Sloan was

declared legally dead on October 5. His widow, Connie Sloan, then commenced this

medical malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the

hospital’s agents failed to exercise reasonable care in monitoring and treating her
1The HONORABLE WILLIAM G. CAMBRIDGE, Chief Judge of the United

States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

husband after his surgery. Mrs. Sloan appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her suit

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

The FTCA does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity from suits for

“injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity

incident to service.” Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). In dismissing

the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the district court found that Sgt. Sloan was on active duty when he began

the surgery on September 30, 1997, and remained on active duty until his condition

deteriorated irretrievably that night. He was placed on the temporary disability retired

list (TDRL) effective October 1. Our sister circuits “have reached varying conclusions

with respect to whether an action for military medical malpractice is barred by the

Feres doctrine when the plaintiff was on TDRL status at the time the alleged tort was

committed.” Bradley v. United States, 161 F.3d 777, 782 (4th Cir. 1998). We need

not enter that debate in this case because it is clear Sgt. Sloan was on active duty status

until his condition was hopeless, beyond the time when the alleged malpractice

necessarily occurred. Accordingly, Mrs. Sloan’s claims are barred by the Feres

doctrine, including her derivative claims on behalf of herself and her children. See

Skees v. United States, 107 F.3d 421, 422, 426 (6th Cir. 1997).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
32


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Smartpay Express, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.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; and





2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Smartpay Express
Inc.








Date:
      November 14, 2008
            By
            /s/
      Benny LeeBenny
      LeeChairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11686]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-229-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 6, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 2, 1996, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective June 
1, 1996:

Title Page
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1
Third Revised Sheet No. 1412
First Revised Sheet No. 1704
First Revised Sheet No. 1705
Second Revised Sheet No. 1706
First Revised Sheet No. 1709
Second Revised Sheet No. 1710
Second Revised Sheet No. 1907
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 2705
Second Revised Sheet No. 2707
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 2706
First Revised Sheet No. 3300
First Revised Sheet No. 4010

    Koch states that the above listed tariff sheets are being filed to 
bring Koch's tariff in compliance with Order No. 582. The tariff 
modifications include a statement with respect to Koch's order of 
discounts, information about reports required by the Commission, and 
other minor modifications such as deletion of cites to the Commission's 
regulations where these cites are now different as a result of Order 
No. 582.
    Koch also states that the revised tariff sheets are being served 
upon all its customers, State Commissions, and other interested 
parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided in 
section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a Motion to 
Intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11686 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions and Policies of Certain Members of the Government of Belarus and Other Persons To Undermine Democratic Processes or Institutions of Belarus

                    On June 16, 2006, by Executive Order 13405, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus and other persons to undermine Belarus's democratic processes or institutions, manifested in the fundamentally undemocratic March 2006 elections; to commit human rights abuses related to political repression, including detentions and disappearances; and to engage in public corruption, including by diverting or misusing Belarusian public assets or by misusing public authority.                

The actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus and other persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on June 16, 2006, must continue in effect beyond June 16, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13405.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2021-12386

Billing code 3295-F1-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-48010, 333-75502,333-75498, 333-111223, 333-121159, 333-130385, and 333-139146) of Watson WyattWorldwide, Inc. of our report dated August 17, 2006 relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

 

McLean, Virginia

August 15, 2008

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 23, 2013

t1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147341 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147341

COA: 316117

Cheboygan CC: 12-004483-FC

ALBERT JOSEPH KNAPP, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of October 28, 2013, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the June 11, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals. On order 

of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

North Shore Capital III, Inc.
Dated: January 19, 2001


I hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report to
Shareholders on Form 10-KSB of my report dated December 31, 2000 appearing on
page F-2 of North Shore's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2000. I also consent to the reference to me under the heading
"Exhibits" in such Registration Statement.



                                        DENNIS W. BERSCH, CPA
                                        /s/ Dennis W. Bersch

                                        ------------------------------------
                                        DENNIS BERSCH, CPA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11662]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-990-0777-68]


Relocation/Change of Address/Office Closure; California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On June 6, 1996, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 
California State Office will move to a new location. This notice 
provides information regarding that move.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lou West, BLM California State 
Office (CA-912), 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-2845, Sacramento, California 
95825-1889; telephone number 916-979-2835.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning on June 6, 1996, BLM's California 
State Office will be moving to a new location. The move will affect the 
following activities or considerations as follows:

(A). Public Access to Records

    During the period of May 30 through June 17, 1996, none of the 
records maintained by that office will be available for public 
inspection. However, the Public Room will remain open during the move 
to provide the following limited services: (1) Provide general or 
recreational information, (2) Distribute forms for the mining claim 
maintenance fee/waiver filing, (3) Process maintenance fees for 
existing mining claims, (4) Process new mining claim locations, and (5) 
Sell maps. It is anticipated that the entire office will be 
operational, at the new location, on June 17, 1996.

(B). New Street Address and New Mailing Address

    2135 Butano Drive, Sacramento, California 95825-0451.
    Please address all correspondence to the new address after June 17, 
1996.

(C). Telephone Numbers

    Existing telephone numbers will remain unchanged after the move.

    Dated: May 3, 1996.
Ronald R. Fox,
Deputy State Director, Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-11662 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly reports of Propex Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph F. Dana                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer               
|November 14, 2006                                   
|                                                    
|/s/ Lee McCarter                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5609 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5609

 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for security protection for the 
  former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
      Diseases who served between January 1984 and December 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2023

 Mr. Strong (for himself, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Collins, and Mr. 
Moore of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for security protection for the 
  former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
      Diseases who served between January 1984 and December 2022.

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

SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR SECURITY PROTECTION FOR THE FORMER 
              DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND 
              INFECTIOUS DISEASES WHO SERVED BETWEEN JANUARY 1984 AND 
              DECEMBER 2022.

    No Federal funds may be used for U.S. Marshal protection, or any 
other security protection, for the former Director of the National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who served between January 
1984 and December 2022.
                                 <all>
```
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 29 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARVIN M. SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-3385

(D.C. No. 96-3398-RDR)

(District of Kansas)

ORDER

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Marvin M. Smith attempts to appeal from an order denying relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. The matter is before us upon an application for a certificate of appealability. 

Having examined Mr. Smith’s brief and the record before us, we conclude the district

court did not err. Therefore, Mr. Smith has failed to demonstrate the issues raised in his

appeal are debatable among jurists; that a court could resolve the issues differently; or

that the questions deserve further proceedings. The certificate of appealability is

DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lennox v. Evans, 87

F.3d 431 (10th Cir. 1996).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2009 of Acergy S.A. (the Company) as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Jean P.
Cahuzac, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                        |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: February 24, 2010 |  | /s/ Jean P. Cahuzac                    
|                        |  | Jean P. Cahuzac Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Bluesky Systems Corp. (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Duane Bennett, Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify that:

 

* the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

* information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Duane Bennett	

Duane Bennett

President, Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer, Controller

 

May 17, 2011

 

 

This certification accompanies this Reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40924 Conference Calendar

__________________ TRACEY W. MURPHY, a/k/a Shakim Supreme, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus UNIDENTIFIED RAMIREZ, Lt.; CURTIS STARR, CO III, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-162
- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tracey W. Murphy appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have examined Murphy's arguments and the record and find no error in the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Murphy v. Unidentified Ramirez , No. 6:95-CV-162 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 1995). Murphy's appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Murphy that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Murphy is further cautioned to review any pendingNo. 95-40924 -2- appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly reports of Propex Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph F. Dana                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer               
|May 9, 2007                                         
|                                                    
|/s/ Lee McCarter                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 9, 2007                                         



51
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6730
GERALD DAVID DAVAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA03-709-JFM) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald David Davage, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gerald David Davage appeals the district court’s orders denying his petition seeking to invoke the inherent power of the court to vacate his convictions and sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. Although the district court denied Davage’s petition on the merits, the court should have construed Davage’s pleading as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because Davage had not obtained authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. We note that, when thedistrict court denied relief, it did not have the benefit of our decision in United States v. Winestock , F.3d , 2003 WL 1949822 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2003). Because the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider Davage’s petition, we affirm the denial of relief on that basis. Pursuant to Winestock , we construe Davage’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In order to obtain authorization to file a second § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8. Davage’s claims do not satisfy3 either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Davage to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED