alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-11269

Conference Calendar

 

DAVID GONZALES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KEVIN MOORE, Riot Team Sergeant; NFN COMPTON, Disciplinary

Captain; R. CHANDLER, Correctional Officer III; G. SARGENT,

Correctional Officer III; D. ATNIP, Correctional Officer III; 

BEN BROWN, Regional Director; C.A. RAINS, Assistant Warden; 

P. DALTON, Riot Team Captain; R. DREWERY, Senior Warden; 

T. SULLIVAN, Riot Team Sergeant; R. CASTANEDA, Correctional

Officer III; M. ROACH, Correctional Officer III; H. DAVILA,

Correctional Officer III; J. COLLIVER, Correctional Officer 

III; NFN MCQUADE, Correctional Officer III; W. KNIGHT, Major

of Internal Affairs Division; C. BENIVEDEZ, Correctional

Officer III,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CV-100

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

June 13, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judge. 

PER CURIAM:* 

We construe the appeal of David Gonzales (TDCJ # 869900) as

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal

in order to challenge the district court’s certification that the

appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d
No. 00-11269

- 2 -

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We note that Gonzales did not timely

appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. His

appeal was timely only with respect to the court’s denial of the

motion for reconsideration. 

 Gonzales has not shown that the district court’s denial of

his motion for reconsideration was so unwarranted as to

constitute an abuse of discretion. See Seven Elves, Inc. v.

Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, his 

appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue, and the motion to

proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous

counts as a “strike” for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; STRIKE WARNING

ISSUED.
<![CDATA[Amendment dated December 19, 2012 between Network 18 Media & Investments Limited]]>



 Exhibit 10.9.2 
 [Network18 Company’s Logo] 
 19 December, 2012 

To, 
 TV18 HSN Holdings Limited

 10, Diomidous Street, 
 Alphamega
Akropolis Building, 
 3rd Floor, Office 401, 2024 Nicosia, 
 Cyprus 
 REFERENCE: Trademark License Agreement dated 1st September, 2012 (“Agreement”) 

SUBJECT: First Addendum to the Agreement (“First Addendum”). 
 Dear Sir, 
 This is in reference to the Agreement between Network18 Media & Investments
Limited (“Licensor”) and TV18 HSN Holdings Limited (“Licensee”) and our subsequent discussions on amending the terms of the Agreement. 
 This letter records the mutual understanding between the Licensor and Licensee to amend the terms of the Agreement as follows: 

 

	 	1.	 	Schedule A to the Agreement is hereby replaced with the Schedule A annexed to this First Addendum. 


 

	 	2.	 	Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain same. 

 Request you to please accord your approval to this First Addendum. 
 For Network18 Media &
Investments Limited, 
  

	
	 /s/ RDS Bawa

	(Authorized Signatory)
	Name: RDS Bawa
	Designation: Group CFO
	
	 





	Accepted
	For TV18 HSN Holdings Limited
	(Authorized Signatory)
	Name: CCY MANAGEMENT LIMITED
	Designation: Director

  

	
	[Letterhead for Network18 Media & Investment limited]








 SCHEDULE A TO TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT 

 

	1.	 	Licensor Trademarks shall include the “18” name and logo and any other aspects of Licensee’s trade/service names/dress/logo in which Licensor has
a proprietary interest. 

 “18 Logo”
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00252

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 2 of Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV

- 2020

- 00855

Before Bassel , Gabriel, and Kerr , JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### USAA C ASUALTY 

### I NSURANCE 

### C OMPANY 

### , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Having considered relator’s petition for writ of mandam us and all related filings, including real party in inter est ’ s September 24, 2020 letter to this court , th e

court is of the opinion that relief should be denied as moot

. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and we lift the stay pre viously ordered by

this court.

Per Curiam

Delivered : October 1, 2020
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Jack P. Healey, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f), for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 14, 2007       /s/ Jack P. Healey Jack P. Healey    Executive Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

JAMAL BYRD, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

 Appellee 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 5 EAP 2014 

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered on 

November 21, 2013 at No. 443 MD 2013 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2014, the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

is hereby AFFIRMED, without prejudice to any right Appellant may have, pursuant to 

Fajohn v. Com., Dep’t of Corrections, 692 A.2d 1067 (Pa. 1997), to seek modification of 

his sentence nunc pro tunc in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-CR-20524

PHILLIP CLAUDIUS GRAY,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Pending before the court is Defendant Phillip Claudius Gray’s “Motion to

Suppress.” The court held an evidentiary hearing on February 11, 2009, in which the

Government presented an off-duty sheriff’s deputy who testified to personally witnessing

Defendant committing a “hand-to-hand” drug transaction. Based on this testimony, and

for the reasons stated on the record, the court concludes that there was more than

ample probable cause to effectuate a lawful arrest, in that “there were sufficient facts

and circumstances to warrant a prudent officer to believe that the suspect had

committed or was about to commit an offense.” Meadows v. Thomas, 117 Fed. App’x

397, 402 (6th Cir. 2004). Because Defendant’s argument for suppression was

predicated on an illegal arrest (Def.’s Mot. at 4), the legal arrest here negates

Defendant’s argument. Accordingly,

2:08-cr-20524-RHC-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 02/13/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 115
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\08-20524.GRAY.Deny.Mot.Suppress.eew.wpd

2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Phillip Claudius Gray’s “Motion Suppress” [Dkt.

# 15] is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 13, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, February 13, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cr-20524-RHC-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 02/13/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 116
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6965
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLAUDIO MELLA-MEZON, a/k/a David Orlando Reyes-Delance, a/k/a David Frias, a/k/a Eddy Nicholas Frias-Asercio, a/k/a Chico, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-9, CA-97-58-7-F) Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: November 21, 1997 Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claudio Mella-Mezon, App ellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mella-Mezon , Nos. CR-92-9; CA-97-58-7-F (E.D.N.C. June 3, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Hilary DURHAM, Defendant/Appellant. Hilary DURHAM, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 61185, 62654.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Feb. 1, 1994.

S. Paige Canfield, Emily Blood, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In a jury-tried case, defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree robbery in violation of § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and one count of first degree burglary in violation of § 569.160, RSMo 1986. He appeals the judgments entered on those convictions. He also appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Infrastructure Materials Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Dated: May 11, 2011








/s/ Todd D. Montgomery


Todd D. Montgomery


Chief Executive Officer


Infrastructure Materials Corp.








Dated: May 11, 2011





/s/ Rakesh Malhotra


Rakesh Malhotra


Chief Financial Officer


Infrastructure Materials Corp.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Infrastructure Material Corp. and will be retained by Infrastructure Materials Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 158-6 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3392
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 158-6 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3393
EXHIBIT 32

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

Julian E. Kulas, President and Chief Executive Officer and Harry Kucewicz, Chief
Financial Officer of First SecurityFed Financial, Inc. (the "Company") each
certify in his or her capacity as an officer of the Company that he or she has
reviewed the annual report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal ended
December 31, 2003 and that to the best of his knowledge:

         (1)      the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
                  13(a) 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.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


March 30, 2004                      /s/ Julian E. Kulas
--------------                      -------------------------------------
Date                                President and Chief Executive Officer


March 30, 2004                      /s/ Harry Kucewicz
--------------                      -------------------------------------
Date                                Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3772 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3772

 To establish certain disclosure requirements relating to franked mail 
            sent by Members of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 1996

     Mr. Castle (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Blute, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Goss, Ms. Greene of Utah, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. LoBiondo, 
  Mr. McHale, Mr. Parker, Mr. Poshard, and Mr. Shays) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish certain disclosure requirements relating to franked mail 
            sent by Members of the House of Representatives.

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

SECTION 1. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) Relating to Each Mailing.--Any franked mail sent by a Member of 
the House of Representatives shall bear on its face, or on the envelope 
or outside cover or wrapper in which the mail matter is sent, the 
following notice: ``this mailing was prepared, published, and mailed at 
taxpayer expense.'', or a notice to the same effect in words which may 
be prescribed under subsection (c).
    (b) Relating to the Congressional Record.--There shall be published 
in the Congressional Record, on an annual basis, a summary tabulation 
setting forth, for the office of each Member of the House of 
Representatives, the total number of pieces of franked mail mailed 
during the year involved and the total cost of those mailings.
    (c) Regulations.--The House Commission on Congressional Mailing 
Standards shall prescribe such rules and regulations and shall take 
such other action as the Commission considers necessary and proper for 
Members to conform to the provisions of this subsection and applicable 
rules and regulations.
    (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            (1) the term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' 
        means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
        Commissioner to, the Congress; and
            (2) the term ``franked mail'' has the meaning given such 
        term by section 3201(4) of title 39, United States Code.
    (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to 
sessions of Congress beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3774

To change from 500 to 250 the number of pieces of mail constituting

a mass mailing in the case of a Member of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 10, 1996

Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GOSS, Ms. GREENE of Utah, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr.

MCHALE, Mr. PARKER, Mr. POSHARD, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight,

and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To change from 500 to 250 the number of pieces of mail

constituting a mass mailing in the case of a Member

of the House of Representatives.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for purposes of applying subparagraph (E)

6 of section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, with

7 respect to any Member of the House of Representatives,
2

•HR 3774 IH

1 such subparagraph shall be applied by substituting ‘‘250

2 pieces’’ for ‘‘500 pieces’’.

3 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the

4 term ‘‘Member of the House of Representatives’’ means

5 a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commis6 sion to, the Congress.

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with

8 respect to sessions of Congress beginning after the date

9 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3007

___________ Jireh Consulting, doing business as The * Writing Company, Inc., * * Plaintiff, * * Appeal from the United States Jerroll M. Sanders, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Appellant, * * [UNPUBLISHED] v. * * Lisa Ross, (McGonigle); Gregory * Rothwell; James Williams; Sheila * Jenkins; Christopher Rothwieler; * Pamela Gardner; David Williams; * United States of America, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 2006 Filed: August 16, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Jerroll Sanders appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing her Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit for lack of s ubject matter jurisdiction. Having carefully reviewed the record, seeLeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing de novo dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), we agree with the district court that Sanders failed to meet her bur den to present specific facts rebutting the Attorney General’s 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) certification, seeLawson v. United States , 103 F.3d 59, 60 (8th Cir. 1996), and we reject Sanders’s argument that discovery and an evidentiary hearing were required in the instant case on the scope-ofemployment issue. The district court thus properly concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Sanders’s lawsuit, give n her admission that she had not filed an administrative claim under the FTCA. See Bellecourt v. United States , 994 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47B. We also deny Sanders’s pending motion.

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES NEWBY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-10774

v.

WOODCREST CONDOMINIUM Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

ASSOCIATION, a Michigan nonprofit

corporation,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

On March 2, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act

(Count I); the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (Count II); and the Michigan Persons

with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (Count III). Plaintiffs do not allege that diversity jurisdiction

exists. Although Plaintiffs’ federal cause of action is cognizable in this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, the remaining allegations present claims based on state law. This court declines

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims so as to avoid jury

confusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966);

Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counts II and III of Plaintiffs’ complaint

are DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2009

5:09-cv-10774-JCO-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 03/05/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 21
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on

this date, March 5, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cv-10774-JCO-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 03/05/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 22