alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30262

BELLE COMPANY, L.L.C.; KENT RECYCLING SERVICES, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:12-CV-247

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court, No. 14-493, 

Kent Recycling Services, LLC v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. The 

Supreme Court vacated our affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of the 

claims before it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded this case 

 

* 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

July 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-30262 Document: 00513616167 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
No. 13-30262

2

to us for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion in Army Corps 

of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U. S. ___ (2016). Accordingly, we VACATE the 

district court’s dismissal and REMAND this case to the district court for the 

Middle District of Louisiana for further proceedings consistent with the

opinion of the Supreme Court.

 Case: 13-30262 Document: 00513616167 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 628 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 628

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
     now accorded various Federal officials to the staffs of those 
                               officials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 1995

  Mr. Horn (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Berman, Mr. Fattah, Mr. 
Ehlers, Mr. English, Mr. Farr, Mr. Frost, Mr. Pete Geren of Texas, Ms. 
Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. King, Mr. Leach, Mr. Ney, Mr. Poshard, Mr. 
 Sensenbrenner, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Walsh, 
  Ms. Pelosi, and Ms. Eshoo) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
     now accorded various Federal officials to the staffs of those 
                               officials.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Staff Protection Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTIONS FOR STAFF OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS.

    Section 115 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting ``a member of the 
        staff or'' before ``a member of the immediate family'';
            (2) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by inserting ``or a member of 
        the staff of such an official, judge, or law enforcement 
        officer; '' after ``under such section,'';
            (3) in the matter following subparagraph (B) in subsection 
        (a)(1), by striking ``or law enforcement officer'' each place 
        it appears and inserting ``law enforcement officer, or member 
        of the staff''; and
            (4) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
                (3);
                    (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
                (4) and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) `member of the staff' includes any person acting in a 
        staff capacity, whether on a paid or unpaid basis.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 624 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 624

 To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to permit 
 the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reduce the maximum 
monthly rents in effect for certain projects receiving assistance under 
such section to eliminate material differences in the rents charged for 
        similar assisted and unassisted units in the same area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

  Mr. Thomas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to permit 
 the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reduce the maximum 
monthly rents in effect for certain projects receiving assistance under 
such section to eliminate material differences in the rents charged for 
        similar assisted and unassisted units in the same area.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8(c)(2)(C) 
of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(2)(C)) is 
amended by striking ``The Secretary may not reduce'' and all that 
follows through ``periodic payments of the owner.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6564

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

$154,863 US CURRENCY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA05-520-1-JFM)

Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005

Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Miller, Appellant Pro Se. A. David Copperthite, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Miller appeals the district court’s order

forfeiting $154,863 to the United States. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Miller, No. CA-04-520-1-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2005). Because the

court has filed and considered Miller’s partial informal brief and

his addendum to the informal brief, we deny Miller’s motion to

strike the court’s order of September 8, 2005, which denied as moot

the motion for extension of time to file Miller’s informal brief.

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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6250

JACK MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00255) Submitted: July 11, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. JACK MOORE, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jack Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Report of Green Planet Bioengineering Co. Limited
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Mr. Min Zhao, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 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 the Company.




Date:
      August 23, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Min
      ZhaoMin
      ZhaoChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### Harvey Lee Franks, Jr. v. State

No. 25455.

November 14, 1951.

Rehearing Denied January 9, 1952.

Hon. Henry King, Judge Presiding.

*Preston Pope Reynolds,*Dallas, for appellant.

*Henry Wade,*Criminal District Attorney, *Charles S. Potts,*Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Dallas, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery; the punishment, 25 years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was identified by the witness as one of the two persons who entered his liquor store and at the point of a pistol took some $322 from his cash register.

The statement of facts shows that appellant admitted to the arresting officers that he committed the robbery and later signed a written confession.

Notice of appeal was given on March 28, 1951, and the 30 days then allowed for filing bills of exception expired on April 27, 1951.

The trial court was without authority to grant an extension *557after expiration of the time allowed and the bills filed on June 26, 1951, cannot be considered.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Notwithstanding the fact that we held originally that the bills of exception could not be considered because they were not filed within the time allowed by law (Art. 760, C. C. P.), appellant insists that matters presented by the bills of exception should be reviewed by us.

Under the mandatory provisions of the statute mentioned, bills of exception not filed within the time allowed by law cannot be considered.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 618

To extend the authorization for appropriations for the Commodity Futures

Trading Commission through fiscal year 2000.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. DE LA GARZA, Mr. EWING, and Mr. ROSE)

(all by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To extend the authorization for appropriations for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission through fiscal year

2000.

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

3 That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commodity Futures

4 Trading Commission Reauthorization Act of 1995’’.

5 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

6 Section 12(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7

7 U.S.C. 16(d)) is amended to read as follows:
2

HR 618 IH

1 ‘‘(d) There are authorized to be appropriated such

2 sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal years 1995

3 through 2000.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT (15)(b)





October 27, 2000


Consumers Energy Company:

We are aware that CMS Energy Corporation has incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statement No. 333-89363 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2000, which includes our report dated October 27, 2000 covering
the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to
Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report
prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
Act.



Very truly yours,

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1127** 

OSWEN FITZHERBERT CAMERON , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : August 28, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014

Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dev A. Kayal, WKC LAW, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Oswen Fitzherbert Cameron, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Boar d) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision ordering him removed from the United States. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision upholding the IJ’s order of removal. See

INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reaso ns stated by the

Board. See In re: Cameron (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2014). 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.

PETIT ION DENIED
(September 17, 1998)

#### Frank Eitner et al., Respondents, v 119 West 71st Street Owners Corp., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

[677 NYS2d 555]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 14, 1997, granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion denied.

While we agree with the motion court that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to this case *(see, Joblon v Solow,*91 NY2d 457; *Weininger v Hagedorn & Co.,*91 NY2d 958), the inconsistencies in plaintiffs statements as to how his injury occurred raise a question of fact as to proximate cause and, thus, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability should have been denied.

Plaintiff, who, at the time of the accident, was employed by third-party defendant AMR Mechanical/Hubert Rose, Inc. (AMR), was allegedly injured when he fell while repairing pipe valves on defendant’s premises. Plaintiff testified at his examination before trial that, on the day in question, as he was descending a stepladder that was leaning against an oil tank, he fell “off to [one] side [and] [l]anded on [his] knee.” According to his testimony, the ladder did not fall. He stated that “[i]t didn’t move,” that he believed it was “[s]till against the tank”. Later in his testimony, plaintiff testified that the ladder “slid off to the side from where it originally was.” The hospital record, however, includes a “patient statement” as to “how” the injury occurred: “I twisted my knee after [I] stepped off the *642ladder.” This statement, which is diametrically opposed to plaintiffs examination-before-trial testimony, raises a question of fact as to whether plaintiffs actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. *(See, Weininger v Hagedorn & Co.,*91 NY2d 958, *supra.)*

The statement is clearly relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiffs injuries and therefore admissible as part of a hospital record. As the Court stated in *Williams v Alexander*(309 NY 283, 288), “[T]he patient’s explanation as to how he was hurt may be helpful to an understanding of the medical aspects of his case.” Plaintiffs description as to how his injury occurred is relevant not only to the treatment of his knee condition, but also to the determination of the presence and extent of injuries to other parts of his body. In addition, if the hospital employee who recorded plaintiffs statement were called, he or she could testify to such statement, which constitutes an admission. In opposing summary judgment, hearsay may be sufficient to raise a factual issue and such is the case in the present circumstances. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


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

    The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


1.       The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
         31, 2003 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 accompanying Report fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


                                   RTW, INC.

Dated: March 28, 2004              By  /s/ Jeffrey B. Murphy
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Jeffrey B. Murphy
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)



Dated: March 28, 2004              By  /s/  Alfred L. LaTendresse
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Alfred L. LaTendresse
                                       Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
                                       Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
                                       (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                       Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 31 (c)



                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company, LLC (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Thomas F. Karam, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David
J. Kvapil, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
his knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
or 15(d) as applicable, 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.

/s/      Thomas F. Karam
--------------------------------
Name:    Thomas F. Karam
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    August 11, 2003

/s/      David J. Kvapil
--------------------------------
Name:    David J. Kvapil
Title:   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date:    August 11, 2003

This certification is furnished pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K and shall
not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise be subject to the liability of
that section. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  statement  No.
33-95072 of Landmark  Bancshares,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated  October
29, 1997  incorporated  by  reference  in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of
Landmark Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 1997.



                                        /s/Regier Carr & Monroe, L.L.P.
                                           Regier Carr & Monroe, L.L.P.



December 26, 1997
Wichita, Kansas
Exhibit 32.2




                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Dennis L. Bergquist, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify, to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"), 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 represents, in all
            material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Registrant.

Date:  November 19, 2003

                                                 /s/ Dennis L. Bergquist
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Dennis L. Bergquist


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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by law,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.