alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-11112 Summary Calendar

RALF MONDONEDO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

121 COMPRADES LTD.

, A Texas Limited Partnership, doing business as La Hacienda Ranch,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(4:00-CV-1867-Y)

February 24, 2003

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ralf Mondonedo appeals, pro se , the summary judgment awarded

1 21 Comprades Ltd. on his Title VII race discrimin ation,

retaliatory discharge, and hostile work environment claims.

Mondonedo was a bartender at La Hacienda Ranch from 17 August 1997

until 19 April 2000, when he was terminated.

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo

. E .g. , Tolson v.

Avondale Industries, Inc.
, 141 F.3d 604, 608 (5th Cir. 1998). The2

judgment is proper if there are no material fact issues and the

movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. F ED

. R. C IV

.

P. 56(c). No authority need be cited for the rule that the record

and all inferences drawn from it are viewe d in the light most

favorable to the non-movant. Based upon our review of the record

and briefs, the s ummary judgment is affirmed essentially for the

reasons stated by the district court.

Further, the district co urt did not abuse its discretion in

denying Mondonedo’s F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(f) continuance motion. S ee,

eg., Liquid Drill, Inc. v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc.
, 48 F.3d

927, 930 (5th Cir. 1990). As a basis for the Rule 56(f) motion,

Mondonedo claims 121 Comprades submitted false and coerced

affidavits or otherwise acted in bad faith; this contention has no

merit.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I,  David M. Gandossi, Chief Financial Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the
"Company"),  certify  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that:

     (1)  the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
          period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements  of  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
          (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d));  and

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

Dated:  November  13,  2003


                                     /s/  David  M.  Gandossi
                                     ------------------------
                                     David M. Gandossi
                                     Chief Financial Officer


                          _____________________________

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


     I,  Mitchell  Binder, Chief Financial Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarterly period ended
September  30,  2010  (the  "Periodic  Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.

Dated: November 15, 2010
                                   /s/ Mitchell Binder
                                   -------------------
                                   Mitchell Binder
                                   Chief Financial Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Meghan Leanne Garza, * From the 161st District Court

 of Ector County, Texas

Trial Court No. B-16-0298-CR.

Vs. No. 11-16-00150-CR * December 15, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with 

this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE> 5
   <LEGEND>
   Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
   the Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
   its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
   </LEGEND>
   <CIK>  0001029386
   <NAME>  Furst & Furst Inc.
          
   <S>                             <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
   <PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
   <PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
   <CASH>                                          28,124
   <SECURITIES>                                         0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                   23,789
   <ALLOWANCES>                                       850
   <INVENTORY>                                     47,913
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,328
   <PP&E>                                          81,845
   <DEPRECIATION>                                  54,545
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,234
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,981
   <BONDS>                                              0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
   <PREFERRED>                                     11,699
   <COMMON>                                            53
   <OTHER-SE>                                           0
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,234
   <SALES>                                              0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,663
   <CGS>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,958
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,950
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,245)
   <INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,626)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,619)
   <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
   <CHANGES>                                            0
   <NET-INCOME>                                  (20,619)
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
           
<PAGE>

   
</TABLE>
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 74 V

Filed: March 8, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

CHERYL WELCH

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA , for petitioner.

Glenn Alexander MacLeod , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On January 16, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she suffered a shoulder injury related to

vaccine administration (“ SIRVA ” ) as a result of an influenza (“ flu ” ) vaccination she

received on September 29, 2016 . Petition at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 5, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in whic h he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Pr omotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

eas e of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).for a SIRVA Id. at 6 . Respondent further agrees that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
Exhibit 35.1**[CHASE LOGO]****SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**RE: Chase Mortgage Finance Trust (CMFT) 2006-S1: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement by and amongChase Mortgage Finance Co as Depositor, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, JPMorganChase Bank, NA as Custodian, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Paying Agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A. as Servicer, (the “Agreement”)The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, asservicer (the “Servicer”) pursuant to the Chase Mortgage Finance Trust (CMFT) 2006-S1 (The“Agreement”), does hereby certify that:          (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ending December 31,2006 and of the performance of the Servicer under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;and          (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year.         Date: 02/28/2007                   JPMorgan Chase Bank,      National Association, as Servicer               By: /s/ David Lowman       Name: David Lowman      Title: Executive Vice President
**EXHIBIT 31.2**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATIONI, James Robert Wren, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portrait Corporation of America, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date:      April 27, 2006 By: /s/ James Robert Wren, Jr.         James Robert Wren, Jr.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, 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.

May 28, 2015

a0518 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2015

150109

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150109

COA: 322356

Genesee CC: 06

- 019088

- FC

ANDRE BERNARD DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2014

o rder of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 34.1

      Attestation Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
                            for The Bank of New York




           ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (collectively,
the "Company")  provides this  platform-level  assessment of compliance with the
servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following  servicing  criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required
under  the   Securities   Exchange   Act  of  1934,   as  amended)   residential
mortgage-backed  securities and other mortgage-related  asset-backed  securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind  transactions  issued prior to
January  1,  2006)  for  which  the   Company   provides   trustee,   securities
administration,  paying agent or custodial services.  The platform includes like
kind   transactions   for  which  the  Company  provided   trustee,   securities
administrator,  paying agent or custodial  services as a result of the Company's
acquisition  as of October 1, 2006 of portions of  JPMorgan  Chase Bank,  N.A.'s
corporate  trust  business,   including  structured  finance  agency  and  trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d),
to  the  extent  required  by  the  related  transaction  agreements  as to  any
transaction,  except for the following criteria:  1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii), (iv),
(4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period,  the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

- The Company is responsible  for assessing its  compliance  with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

- The  Company has assessed  compliance with the  Applicable Servicing Criteria.

- As of  December  31,  2006 and for the  Period,  the  Company  was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent  registered public accounting firm, has issued
an  attestation  report with respect to the  Company's  foregoing  assessment of
compliance.


        The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
        The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
            Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.

        By: /s/ Robert L. Griffin               By: /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
            ----------------------                  ----------------------
            Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
            Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Appeal of Springfield :

Hospital :

Folio No. 42-00-06625-01 :

:

Appeal of: Prospect Crozer, LLC : No. 191 C.D. 2017

AMENDING ORDER

AND NOW, this 2

nd day of March, 2018, on page 10, the first full 

paragraph, first sentence, of the majority opinion filed on February 13, 2018, is 

hereby amended to read as follows:

Unlike Lawrence County, Delaware County is a Second Class A

county and, therefore, is subject to the Second Class County Assessment Law rather 

than the Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law. 

 

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-31225 Summary Calendar

CLARENCE RANDOLPH, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ST. TAMMANY PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE; RODNEY J. STRAIN, JR., St. Tammany Parish Sheriff; FARREL CRANDLE, St. Tammany Parish Jail Medical Director; MARLIN PEACHEY, Warden, St. Tammany Parish Jail, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:02-CV-1239

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clarence Randolph appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, wherein he alleged that the defendants failed to protect him from harm and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while he was incarcerated in the St. Tammany Parish Jail. During the course of the litigation, Randolph’s claims against St. Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis, the St. Tammany Parish Consolidated Government, the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’sNo. 04-31225 -2-

** The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. Office, Peter Galvin, Warden Marlin Peachey, and Farrell Crandle were dismissed. Following the dismissal of his claims against Strain, Randolph appealed. Randolph argues that the magistrate judge ** erred by granting Strain’s motion for summary judgment because he presented sufficient facts to support his claims. He also seeks leave to supplement the record on appeal to include evidence not before the magistrate judge. Randolph’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson , 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). Randolph has not briefed any issues related to the dismissal of any defendant, except Strain. By failing to brief any issues related to the dismissals of the other defendants, he has abandoned these issues on appeal.
See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). A review of the record shows that Randolph failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that Strain was deliberately indifferent to Randolph’s safety. Accordingly, Randolph failed to establish that Strain failed to protect him. See Farmer v.
Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833-34, 837 (1994). A review of the record also shows that Randolph failed to establish that Strain was deliberately indifferent to Randolph’s serious medical needs. Randolph received medical treatment forNo. 04-31225 -3- the injuries he sustained after he was attacked by another prisoner. His allegations establish nothing more than a disagreement with the medical treatment provided. These allegations are insufficient to state a constitutional claim.
See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6625 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from issuing guidance intended to restrict access to COVID–19 monoclonal antibody therapies and other treatments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2022 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. 

GARBARINO, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. FEENSTRA, 

Mr. LAMBORN, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. BOST, and Ms. TENNEY) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from issuing guidance intended to restrict access to 

COVID–19 monoclonal antibody therapies and other 

treatments. 

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 ‘‘Equal Access to Thera5 peutics Act’’. 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6625 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON RESTRICTIONS ON DIRECT AC2 CESS TO COVID–19 MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY 

3 THERAPIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

6 may not issue, implement, or continue in effect any policy 

7 or guidance intended to base any determination on wheth8 er an individual may access COVID–19 monoclonal anti9 body therapies and other COVID–19 treatments on the 

10 race or ethnicity of such individual. 

11 (b) PENALTIES.—The Secretary of Health and 

12 Human Services shall be held personally liable for the 

13 death of any individual who is denied access to COVID– 

14 19 monoclonal antibody therapies and other treatments 

15 pursuant to any policy or guidance prohibited under sub16 section (a). 

17 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING TO HOS18 PITALS AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO 

19 RESTRICT ACCESS TO COVID–19 

20 MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY THERAPIES. 

21 No Federal funds may be disbursed to any hospital 

22 or other health care provider that has in effect a policy 

23 that restricts access by individuals to COVID–19 

24 monoclonal antibody therapies and other COVID–19 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6625 IH

1 treatments based on the race or ethnicity of such individ2 uals. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS