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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30674

Summary Calendar

GLORIA WILLIAMS-KATES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Jeh 

Johnson, Secretary,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

U.S.D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00772-SS

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Gloria Williams-Kates appeals from a final judgment 

dismissing all of her claims, giving us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

affirm.

Williams-Kates sued her former employer, the Department of Homeland 

Security (“DHS”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting

claims of discrimination due to age, disability, and gender, as well as 

retaliation. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s deciding the 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

February 12, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30674 Document: 00512530701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2014
No. 13-30674

DHS submitted a motion for summary judgment, and Williams-Kates 

eventually filed two volumes of exhibits in opposition.

The magistrate granted summary judgment in favor of DHS on all of 

Williams-Kates’s claims, dismissing her suit with prejudice on June 7, 2013. 

The magistrate judge’s Order and Reasons carefully set out the facts at issue, 

noted Williams-Kates’s often unsupported objections to each fact, and applied

to the undisputed material facts the burden-shifting framework under

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). On appeal, WilliamsKates essentially reurges the same arguments she raised below.

Under our de novo review of this grant of summary judgment, applying 

the same standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 that the magistrate judge 

applied,1 we reach the same conclusions that the magistrate judge reached, 

for the same reasons stated in her Order and Reasons. Accordingly, we 

affirm.

1 See Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group, Inc., 482 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 2007)

(citing Jones v. Comm'r, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003)).

2

 

 Case: 13-30674 Document: 00512530701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2014
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51295-51296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Notice of Cancellation of Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Eastern Plains Transmission Project (EPTP), Eastern Colorado and 
Western Kansas

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power 
Administration (Western) is canceling the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal by Western to 
participate with Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, 
Incorporated (Tri-State), in the construction of the Eastern Plains 
Transmission Project (EPTP). Western would have obtained 275 megawatts 
of capacity rights on the proposed transmission lines by participating 
in the EPTP. The EIS would have addressed the construction, operation, 
and maintenance of approximately 1,000 miles of high-voltage 
transmission lines and ancillary facilities, which included 
substations, fiber optic installation, access roads, and construction 
staging areas. Western issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for 
the EPTP in the Federal Register on August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43733), and 
conducted 10 public scoping meetings throughout the project area from 
August 28 through September 14, 2006. Additional public meetings were 
held in February 2007 (72 FR 2507), and in June 2007 (72 FR 30792). 
Western is canceling the preparation of the EIS due to anticipated 
changes in the EPTP scope. If Western decides to participate in the re-
defined EPTP, a National Environmental Policy Act review will

[[Page 51296]]

be initiated at that time. Tri-State may continue with development of 
the EPTP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Hartman, Environmental 
Manager, Western Area Power Administration, Rocky Mountain Customer 
Service Region, P.O. Box 3700, Loveland, CO 80539, Telephone: 970-461-
7450, Fax: 970-461-7213; or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1999083859c909fb186908190df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4dcd5c6c0d9d5daf4c3d5c4d59ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 22, 2008.
Timothy J. Meeks,
Adminstrator.
[FR Doc. E8-20237 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* 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. 02-60099

Conference Calendar

 

TONY L. BLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

(UNKNOWN) KNUTSON, DR.; (UNKNOWN)

BEARRY, DR.; HENRY WADSWORTH, DR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:01-CV-167-P-A

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

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tony L. Bland, Mississippi prisoner # 24431, has filed an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on

appeal, following the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of

his civil rights complaint. By moving for IFP, Bland is

challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status

should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken
No. 02-60099

-2-

in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court construed Bland’s complaint as raising a

challenge to the medical care he received in the Mississippi

Department of Corrections and ordered that the case be dismissed

on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, as Bland had

raised the same claims in the state courts. Bland contends that

he was actually attempting to appeal the Mississippi Supreme

Court’s failure to grant him IFP status on his appeal in the

state courts and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal. Under

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack

jurisdiction to review state judgments. United States v.

Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994); Liedtke v. State Bar

of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). Bland’s appeal is

thus without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying

that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denying Bland IFP

status on appeal, we deny the motion for leave to proceed IFP,

and we DISMISS Bland’s appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d

at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50811-50812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-438-000]


WTG Hugoton, LP; Notice of Technical Conference

August 21, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference 
in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 
10 a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    The Commission's July 31, 2008 Order \1\ directed that a technical 
conference be held to address the issues raised by WTG Hugoton, LP's 
(WTG) July 1, 2008, tariff filing to reflect annual adjustments to its 
fuel retention percentages (FRPs). Commission Staff and parties will 
have the opportunity to discuss all of the issues raised by WTG's 
filing including, but not limited to, technical, engineering and 
operational issues, and issues related to the

[[Page 50812]]

interpretation of tariff provisions governing WTG's FRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\WTG Hugoton, LP, 124 FERC ]61,119 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d6c6e6e687e7e646f64616479744d6b687f6e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e08183838593938982898c899499a086859283ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further 
information please contact Timothy Duggan at (202) 502-8326 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#faae9397958e9283d4be8f9d9d9b94ba9c9f8899d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfebd6d2d0cbd7c691fbcad8d8ded1ffd9dacddc91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19923 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00438

- CR

IN RE SHANE MIX

Original Proceeding

OPINION

Shane Mix, a jail inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule

on the relief requested by Mix in an application for writ of habeas corpus filed on

November 7, 2019. Mix alleges that the habeas application was read to the trial court in
open court on November 8, 2019 and that the trial court has not ruled on the applica tion.
We asked for a response on December 9, 2019 from the R espondent or the Real

Party

- in

- Interest. In the request, we stated that if the application for writ of habeas corpus
had been ruled on, a copy of the ruling would suffice in place of a response. To this date,

no response or copy of the ruling has been filed.

This is not like cases where the trial court does not know about the document
requesting relief. In this case, it appears t he habeas application was read to the trial courtIn re Mix Page 2

in open court more than 60 days ago. No reason has been given for the delay in ruling
on the application or for a need for further consideration.
Accordingly, w e conditionally grant the requested writ of mandamus. We are
confident that the Respondent will promptly cons ider and rule on Mix’s application for
writ of habeas corpus filed on November 7, 2019 . The writ will issue only if the
Respondent fails to advise this Court within thirty days of the date of this opinion that

he has ruled on the application

.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Pet. conditionally granted Opinion delivered and filed January 22 , 2020 Publish [OT06]
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-149903 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 17, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of DCP Holding Company and subsidiaries (the “Company”)(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainties in Income Taxes*, on January 1, 2007)appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

March 17, 2009
EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Citigroup Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8  ("Registration  Statement")  of  Citigroup  Inc.  of our report  dated
January 25,  1999,  with  respect to the  consolidated  statement  of  financial
position of Citigroup  Inc. and  subsidiaries  ("Citigroup")  as of December 31,
1998 and 1997,  and the related  consolidated  statements of income,  changes in
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1998, which report is included in the annual report on
Form 10-K, as amended, of Citigroup Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
January 18, 2000
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ULTRATEC, INC., Appellant

v.

CAPTIONCALL, LLC, Appellee

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

, Intervenor

______________________

2019

- 2003, 2019

- 2004

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board i n No s . IPR2013

- 00549, IPR2014

- 00780.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K RISTIN G RAHAM N OEL , Quarles & Brady, LLP, Madison, WI, argued for appellant. Also represented by M ARTHA J AHN S NYDER

, A NTHONY A LLEN T OMASELLI

. Case: 19-2003 Document: 70 Page: 1 Filed: 10/14/2020P RATIK A. S HAH , Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Z.W. J ULIUS C HEN

, R ACHEL J. E LSBY ; M ICHAEL P.

K

AHN

, C AITLIN E LIZABETH O LWELL

, M ICHAEL N ASSER P ETEGORSKY , New York, NY; R UBEN H. M UNOZ , Phi ladelphia, PA.

F RANCES L YNCH , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

, M OLLY R. S ILFEN

.

_

_____________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge

, L OURIE and

M OORE

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 14, 2020
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-2003 Document: 70 Page: 2 Filed: 10/14/2020
CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Phreadz, Inc. (the “Company”)
for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christina Domecq,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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


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





By:
              /s/
      Christina DomecqChief
      Executive Officer andPrincipal
      Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000077242
<NAME> PG ENERGY INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  230,655,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  5,159,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      60,970,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    35,214,000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             331,998,000
<COMMON>                                    33,142,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   32,678,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         26,368,000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              92,188,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          739,000
<PREFERRED>                                 19,192,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        92,300,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               20,130,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       80,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             107,369,000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              331,998,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  108,870,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         3,408,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  95,285,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  98,693,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     10,177,000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             311,000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              10,488,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     5,067,000
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,035,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  1,383,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                3,652,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    33,768,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                    4,837,000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                    (38,032,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2281
ALFRED T. THOMAS; RANDY L. THOMAS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS; RAYMOND GIOVANELLI; MUFFET GARBER; MICHELE E. MORRIS; MARIA B. PETREA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00238) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred T. Thomas, Randy L. Thomas, Appellants Pro Se. Mark Weston Johnson, HELMS, MULLISS & WICKER, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alfred T. Thomas and Randy L. Thomas appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools , No. 3:06-cv-00238 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2006). We deny Thomas’ motions to certify and for sanctions, and 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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6685 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6685

    To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prioritize the 
 acceptance of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel from 
    certain civilian nuclear power reactors, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

Mr. Levin of California (for himself, Mr. Issa, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Steel, 
Ms. Porter, and Mrs. Kim of California) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prioritize the 
 acceptance of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel from 
    certain civilian nuclear power reactors, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE PRIORITY FOR HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT 
              NUCLEAR FUEL.

    Section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 
10222(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(7) In determining the order in which the Secretary will accept 
high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel for disposal or 
storage, the Secretary shall prioritize high-level radioactive waste or 
spent nuclear fuel from a civilian nuclear power reactor based on the 
operating status of the civilian nuclear power reactor, the population 
of the area in which the civilian nuclear power reactor is located, the 
earthquake hazard of the area in which the civilian nuclear power 
reactor is located, and national security risk related to the continued 
storage of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel in the 
area in which the civilian nuclear power reactor is located, giving 
highest priority to a civilian nuclear power reactor that is--
            ``(A) decommissioned or decommissioning;
            ``(B) located in an area, as determined by the Secretary, 
        the population of which is the largest;
            ``(C) located in an area with the highest hazard of an 
        earthquake, as indicated by the Seismic Hazard Maps published 
        by the Director of the United States Geological Survey pursuant 
        to section 5(b)(3)(J) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act 
        of 1977; and
            ``(D) located in an area, as determined by the Secretary 
        (in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the 
        Secretary of Homeland Security), where the continued storage of 
        high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel poses a 
        significant national security concern.''.
                                 <all>
```