alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CAROLYN GAMMICHIA,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-12231

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ROBERT L. LEMAN, ET AL,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER

The Court received Ms. Gammicchia"s Motion to Set Aside Judge's Order to

Enforce Settlement. The Court regards this as a motion for reconsideration under LR

7.1 (h). Defendants filed a response to the motion, which the Court will accept.

The standard of review on a motion for reconsideration is as follows: 

Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the

court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration

that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court,

either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant

must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the

court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard

on the motion have been misled but also show that

correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of

the case.

The Court considers the standard and Ms. Gammicchia's motion. The motion is

DENIED. Ms. Gammicchia fails to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court

has been misled. LR 7.1(h)(3).

2:09-cv-12231-VAR-PJK Doc # 29 Filed 03/04/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 142
2

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: March 4, 2011

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Carolyn Gammicchia by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on March 4, 2011.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12231-VAR-PJK Doc # 29 Filed 03/04/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 143
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie WOOD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2454

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1972.

Harry Lee Hudspeth, El Paso, Tex., (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Edward S. Marquez, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

*

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was committed to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, after the district judge had concluded that appellant was not capable of standing trial on a charge of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. The order of commitment required that appellant be given extensive treatment, and that progress reports be submitted to the district court periodically until appellant is competent to stand trial or until the charges pending against him are disposed of according to law.

We believe that the district court erred in ordering appellant committed until he is in fact competent to stand trial. There was no finding below as to whether appellant would probably en*677danger the officers, property, or other interests of the United States; and without such a finding, a prisoner committed under Section 4246 may be held only for a reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial *chance*of his attaining competency to stand trial in the foreseeable future. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 1855, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972).

We therefore modify the district court’s order of commitment to require that appellant be held at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners only for such time as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial chance of his attaining competency to stand trial in the foreseeable future. If it appears from the Center’s periodic progress reports that his chances are good, then he may be held until trial. If, however, his chances are slight, or if he does not in fact improve, then he must be released or granted a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247. Jackson v. Indiana, *supra.*

Affirmed as modified.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 5, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00693

- CV

The City of Austin, Appellant

v.

David Goodman, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, J USTICES PEMBERTON AN D FIELD
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT ’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal in the

above cause, and the Court having fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion that

same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant

p ay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision

be certified below for observance.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E8-18107 published on pages 46005 and 46006 of the issue for Thursday, August 7, 2008.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City heading, the entry for The Schifferdecker Limited Partnersip, Girard, Kansas, is revised to read as follows:

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. The Schifferdecker Limited Partnership, Girard, Kansas; Mark W. Schifferdecker, Girard, Kansas; Susan B. Friesen, Omaha, Nebraska; and Joy L. Shoop, Hiawatha, Kansas; as general partners*, to acquire control of GN Bankshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly aacquire control of The Girard National Bank, both in Girard, Kansas.                

Comments on this application must be received by August 21, 2008.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 7, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-18554 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1443

KING GRANT-DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR; SOUTH CAROLINA 

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:15-cv-02521-PMD)

Submitted: September 20, 2018 Decided: October 2, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

King Grant-Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON 

PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

King Grant-Davis appeals the district court’s order denying leave to amend his 

amended complaint and adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting 

summary judgment to Defendants in Grant-Davis’ civil action. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Grant-Davis v. S.C. Office of the Governor, No. 2:15-cv-02521-PMD 

(D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 23.1













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement
of CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. on Form S-8
(File No. 0-22888) of our report, which
includes an explanatory paragraph
regarding substantial doubt about the
ability of the Company to continue as a
going concern, dated June 26, 1997, on
our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of CAI Wireless Systems, Inc.
as of March 31, 1997 and 1996, and for
the years ended March 31, 1997, 1996 and
1995, which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.





COOPERS & LYBRAND LLP

Albany, New York
June 26, 1997
#### James J. Nevins, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Foster Daleon Jones, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00158

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Red River County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR02262 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss,

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Foster Daleon Jones, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 29, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10016

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Demarcus Rakestraw, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-469-1

______________________________

Before Jolly, Jones, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Demarcus Rakestraw, federal prisoner # 27612-177, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his request for compassionate release. He argues 

that the district court abused its discretion by not evaluating his declining 

health alongside his inability to receive the COVID-19 vaccine when denying 

him relief.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 7, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10016 Document: 00516813869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
No. 23-10016

2

The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The court adequately 

considered Rakestraw’s arguments in favor of compassionate release, but it 

concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against it. See Chavez-Meza v. 

United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018); United States v. Escajeda, 58 

F.4th 184, 188 (5th Cir. 2023). The record supports the district court’s

independent assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, and it is therefore

unnecessary for us to discuss Rakestraw’s remaining claims. See United 

States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United 

States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-10016 Document: 00516813869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Stratasys, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, S. Scott Crump,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

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

|Date: April 27, 2012 | /s/ S. SCOTT CRUMP                          | 
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | 
|                     | S. Scott
      Crump                       
|                     | President and Chief
      Executive Officer

23

---
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated March 28, 2008, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18570), Siegfried (USA), Inc., Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleDihydromorphine (9145)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIAmobarbital (2125)
IIPentobarbital (2270)
IISecobarbital (2315)
IIGlutethimide (2550)
IICodeine (9050)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone intermediate (9254)
IIDextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms) (9273)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried (USA), Inc., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried (USA), Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: July 28, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E8-17974 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
I

★

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3606

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to restore freedom of speech

to the Internet and to protect children from unsuitable online material.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1996

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to restore freedom of speech to the Internet and to protect children

from unsuitable online material.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internet Freedom and

5 Child Protection Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDERS REQUIRED TO MAKE

7 SCREENING SOFTWARE AVAILABLE.

8 Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47

9 U.S.C. 223) is amended—

10 (1) in subsection (a)(1)—
2

•HR 3606 IH1S

1 (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and

2 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C)

3 through (E) as subparagraphs (B) through (D),

4 respectively;

5 (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the

6 following:

7 ‘‘(d) OBLIGATIONS OF INTERNET ACCESS PROVID8 ERS.—

9 ‘‘(1) ACCESS PROVIDER OBLIGATION.—An

10 Internet access provider shall, at the time of enter11 ing an agreement with a customer for the provision

12 of Internet access services, offer such customer, ei13 ther for a fee or at no charge, screening software

14 that is designed to permit the customer to limit ac15 cess to material that is unsuitable for children.

16 ‘‘(2) AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE MINIMUM

17 STANDARDS.—The Commission shall prescribe mini18 mum technical standards for screening software for

19 purposes of paragraph (1).

20 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub21 section:

22 ‘‘(A) INTERNET.—The term ‘Internet’

23 means the international computer network of

24 both Federal and non-Federal interoperable

25 packet switched data networks.
3

•HR 3606 IH1S

1 ‘‘(B) INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDER.—The

2 term ‘Internet access provider’ means a person

3 engaged in the business of providing a com4 puter and communications facility through

5 which a customer may obtain access to the

6 Internet, but does not include a common carrier

7 to the extent that it provides only transmission

8 and routing services.

9 ‘‘(C) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES.—The

10 term ‘Internet access services’ means the provi11 sion of computer and communications services

12 through which a customer using a computer

13 and a modem or other communications device

14 may obtain access to the Internet, but does not

15 include transmission and routing services pro16 vided by a common carrier.’’; and

17 (3) by striking subsections (e) through (h).

18 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATES.

19 The amendments made by section 2 of this Act are

20 effective on the date of enactment of this Act, except that

21 the requirements of section 223(d) of the Communications

22 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(d)) as amended by section

23 2 shall be effective 6 months after such date of enactment.

Æ
### NUMBER 13
- 12
- 00 138
- CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ MARK MERU , A ppellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Mark Meru , filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction for burglary of a habitation . By order signed March 30, 2012 , the trial court granted appellant's motion for new trial.

When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, it restores the case to its position
before the former trial. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 21.9(b). Because there is no conviction to2

be appealed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Waller v. State , 931
S.W. 2d 640, 643

- 44 (Tex. App.

B Dallas 1996, no pet.). The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the trial court's order granting a new trial, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the 19th day of July , 20 12

.
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 594
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 595
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 596
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 597
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 598
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 599
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 600
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6189

TIMOTHY ENGRAM , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ALLEN GANG; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Senior District Judge. ( 8:19

- cv - 01986

- DKC )

Submitted : June 24, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Timothy Engram, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Engram seeks to appeal the district court’s orde r dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzale z v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from
latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 2 8 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a co nstitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable
claim of t he denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v.
McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Engram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certif icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 632

AN ACT

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of

patents used by the United States.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 632

AN ACT

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used

by the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. JUST COMPENSATION.

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 1498(a) of title 28,

5 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of
2

•HR 632 EH

1 the first paragraph the following: ‘‘Reasonable and entire

2 compensation shall include the owner’s reasonable costs,

3 including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attor4 neys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent

5 inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had

6 no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-

7 year period preceding the use or manufacture of the pat8 ented invention by or for the United States. Reasonable

9 and entire compensation described in the preceding sen10 tence shall not be paid from amounts available under sec11 tion 1304 of title 31, but shall be payable subject to such

12 extent or in such amounts as are provided in annual ap13 propriations Acts.’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

15 subsection (a) shall apply to actions under section 1498(a)

16 of title 28, United States Code, that are pending on, or

17 brought on or after, January 1, 1995.

Passed the House of Representatives December 12,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.