alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Judge Pickering was a member of the original panel but

retired from the Court on December 8, 2004 and, therefore did not

participate in this decision. This matter is being decided by a

quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

** 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 30, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51047

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

OSCAR GOMEZ-TRUJILLO

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas, El Paso

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KING and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellee’s motion to reinstate

prior affirmance of Defendant-Appellant’s conviction in lieu of

filing supplemental Booker brief is GRANTED. Defendant-Appellant

Oscar Gomez-Trujillo raised a Booker issue for the first time in

his petition for certiorari. Thus, as he recognizes, we will not
No. 03-51047

-2-

consider his challenge absent extraordinary circumstances. 

Because Gomez-Trujillo cannot meet the plain-error test, he

necessarily fails to meet the much more demanding standard for

“extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. RodriguezGutierrez, 428 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2005). Gomez-Trujillo’s

conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellee’s alternative

motion to extend time to file Plaintiff-Appellee’s supplemental

brief until 14 days after denial of motion to reinstate prior

affirmance is DENIED as moot.
WILLIAM P. RAGUSA

, Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and ADP TOTALSOURCE CO XXI

, Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1260

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 18, 2016.

An appeal from an order f rom the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

. Frank E. Brown, Chairman

. William P. Ragusa, pro se , Appellant.

Cristina Angelica Velez, Tallahassee , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, ROWE

, and RAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-60]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-60 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: August 5, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 47892)          ( print page 47893)          ( print page 47894)          ( print page 47895)          ( print page 47896)          ( print page 47897)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E8-18636 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

EVEREST REINSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.

EXHIBIT 11.1

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
TREASURY STOCK METHOD
December 31, 1996 (Dollars in thousands)


                                                         Primary   Fully Diluted
                                                        Earnings        Earnings
                                                       Per Share       Per Share
                                                     -----------   -------------

<S>                                                  <C>             <C>
Net income                                           $   112,027

Weighted average common shares outstanding            50,566,566

Earnings per share based on weighted average
  of common shares                                   $      2.22
                                                     ===========



Dilutive effect of options outstanding                   143,855         161,436
Dilutive effect of options exercised                         167             175
Dilutive effect of options cancelled                         247             254

Average number of common shares outstanding           50,566,566      50,566,566

Average number of common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding                       50,710,835      50,728,431

Net income                                           $   112,027     $   112,027

Earnings per share                                   $      2.21     $      2.21
                                                     ===========     ===========

</TABLE>

<PAGE>
#### YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF CLEVELAND, Incorporated, Appellant, v. Joseph B. KENNEDY, Appellee.

No. 7469.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April *11,*1938.

Halle, Harris, Haber & Bericlc, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

E. A. Binyon, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In an appeal from a judgment rendered on the verdict of a jury in an action for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in an automobile accident through the defendant’s negligence, it appearing that no motion for directed verdict was made at the conclusion of all of the evidence, and no objection made to the instructions of the court, and the sole support of the assignments of error being the alleged failure of the evidence to support the verdict, plain on the face of the record, but it also appearing that under all the circumstances of the case there was evidence of negligence, and that the evidence warranted a finding of wanton and willful misconduct, notwithstanding a conclusion of contributory negligence, and there being no other prejudicial error in the case, it is ordered that the judgment below be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Willie James HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. M. VAN CLEVE, Warden and J. W. Ross, Captain of the Guards, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 72-2783

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1972.

Willie James Henry, pro se.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., L. B. Sullivan, Commissioner, Alabama Board of Corrections, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

 Appellant, an inmate of an Alabama state prison, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendants, the warden and captain of the prison guards, denied him visiting privileges only because he is a Negro. He alleged that he was denied the privilege of visits from his family while white inmates in the same circumstances were allowed visitations. The District Court dismissed the suit without calling for a response, on the ground that it should not interfere in the internal management of prisons except in exceptional cases where prison officials have abused the wide discretion allowed them. See Conklin v. Wainwright, 424 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1970); Diehl v. Wainwright, 419 F.2d 1309 (5th Cir. 1970); Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1909). We have, however, consistently recognized that an infringement upon the constitutional right of inmates to be free from racial discrimination requires the scrutiny of federal courts. Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1968); Burroughs v. Wainwright, 464 F.2d 1027 [5th Cir., 1972], Beard v. Lee, 396 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1968). That principle requires that we vacate the judgment below and remand to allow, the District *688Court to call for a response from the state and, if necessary, hold an evidenti-ary hearing to determine the validity of appellant’s assertions.

Vacated and remanded.
Exhibit 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael O. Matthews, 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, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                         |  |     |  |                                             
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: September 3, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael O. Matthews                     
|                         |  |     |  | Michael O. Matthews                         
|                         |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
|                         |  |     |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 September 24, 2018

Order 

Clerk

September 24, 2018

157940(161)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 157940

v COA: 329229

Ingham CC: 14-001380-FH

JOHN CORYELL KELSEY, II, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the second motion of defendant-appellant to file a 

supplemental authority is GRANTED. The supplemental authority received on September 

10, 2018, is accepted for filing.
Exhibit
32.2





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 Report of
Acquired Sales Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”) I, Gerard M. Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge:





a.
            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





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








/s/ Gerard M.
Jacobs


Gerard M.
Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)





Dated
February 15, 2010
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14332

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLEATE WILSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00217-VMC-CPT-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-14332 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14332

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Cleate Wilson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is 

unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. We affirm.

Mr. Wilson recognizes that we’ve upheld 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) against a Second Amendment challenge, see United 

States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 769, 770 (11th Cir. 2010), but argues that 

the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, 

Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has abrogated our precedent. We 

have, however, recently rejected this exact contention. See United 

States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284, 1291-93 (11th Cir. 2024). 

As for the Commerce Clause challenge, it is foreclosed by 

our precedent. We have “held that . . . § 922(g) is constitutional 

under the Commerce Clause.” United States v. Longoria, 874 F.3d

1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 

387, 391 (11th Cir. 1996)). We have also rejected as-applied challenges to § 922(g), holding that the government proves a “minimal 

nexus” to interstate commerce where it demonstrates that the firearm was manufactured outside of the state where the offense took 

place and, thus, necessarily traveled in interstate commerce. See 

United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715-16 (11th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-14332 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 09/06/2024 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


Catalyst International, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Catalyst International, Inc. (the
Company) of our report dated January 28, 2000, included in the
1999 Annual Report to Shareholders of the Company.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of the
Company listed in item 14(a).  This schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion,
the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-1394) pertaining to
the 1993 Stock Option Plan, as amended, of Catalyst USA, Inc.
and (Form S-8 No. 33-97522C) pertaining to the 1997 Director
Stock Option Plan of Catalyst International, Inc. of our report
dated January 28, 2000, with respect to the financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement
schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of the
Company.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 28, 2000


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Tongji Healthcare Group, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended  June 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: August 14, 2012


By:
/s/ Yunhui YuYunhui Yu

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### EATON v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 7855.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 19, 1938.

Perry W. Shrader and -Cecil H. Haas, both of Kansas City, Mo., and Chas. M. Frey, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Berryman Green, and Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

HANEY, Circuit Judge.

In a former opinion, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 332, 334, we remanded this proceeding to the Board of Tax Appeals, with instructions that the Board make “a specific finding on the question of whether or not the loss incurred by the taxpayer was incurred in the course of his trade or business,” and we further directed “that a specific finding be made on the question of whether or not the taxpayer at the time he purchased the land intended to destroy the trees.”

The facts underlying the petition herein are set forth in our former opinion.

Pursuant to our mandate the Board made the following specific findings: “We are of the opinion and find as a fact that any loss that may have been sustained by the petitioner by reason of the destruction of the apple and pear trees on the land purchased was incurred in the course of the petitioner’s trade or business,” and, also, “We find as a fact that the petitioner at the time he purchased the land in question intended to destroy the trees that were destroyed immediately thereafter and to retain those trees that were saved,” and consequently found that there was no deductible loss.

Upon such findings the Board again made its decision “that there is a deficiency of $4,537.06 for the year 1928” of which petitioner here seeks review.

The findings above set forth are in conformity with our order, and mean that the loss if -any was incurred “in the course of petitioner’s trade or business,” but that there was in fact no deductible loss' because the trees destroyed had no cash basis.

The only question for our consideration is whether or not there is any substantial evidence to support such findings. We hold that there is ample evidence, including'testimony of witnesses of respondent, not only tending to show but rather bearing conviction that respondent acquired the land for the purpose of producing lettuce and with the definite intention of removing the trees in accordance with the program which he almost immediately carried out.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NIKOLAOS AGAS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-12093

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [21]

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s July 6, 2010

Report and Recommendation, [Docket Text # 21]. Being fully advised in the premises and

having reviewed the record and the pleadings, including Defendant’s objections if any, the

Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and the decision

of the Commissioner is REVERSED. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this

matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further

proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: July 26, 2010
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on July 26, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-161206, 333-151527, 333-140233, 333-135220, 333-131324, 333-126773, 333-112417, 333-108937, 333-147561)
pertaining to the 1991 Employee and Consultant Stock Plan, 1993 Director Stock Option Plan, 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 2001 Stock Incentive Plan and 2003 Israeli Share Option Plan of DSP Group, Inc., the 239,000 shares of common stock of DSP
Group, Inc. issuable pursuant to options granted on December 1, 2004, and the 235,000 shares of common stock of DSP Group, Inc. issuable pursuant to options granted on October 31, 2007, of our reports dated March 16, 2011, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of DSP Group Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of DSP Group Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/    KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERKOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
 A Member of Ernst & Young Global


Tel-Aviv, Israel

March 16, 2011