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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 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 takenNo. 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; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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: November 12, 2004                         /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth
Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1867** 
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND, by its trustees; SALVATORE J. CHILIA, Trustee; D. R. BORDEN, JR., Trustee , Plaintiffs

- Appellees ,
v. MIRARCHI BROTHERS, INC. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Deborah K. Chasanow , Chief District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 02621

- DKC )

Submitted : January 31, 2014 Decided: February 12, 2014

Before KING and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Matthew I. Sack, DAVIS BUCCO & ARDIZZI, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania; Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for App ellant. Jennifer Bush Hawkins, POTTS

- DUPRE, DIFEDE & HAWKINS, CHTD., Washington, D
. C
. , for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mirarchi Brothers, Incorporated, appeals the district
court ’ s order granti ng summary judgment for National Electrical Benefit Fund (“NEBF”) under the Employee Retirem ent Income Security Act of 1974 and awarding NEBF unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and audit fees related to an audit of Mirarchi’s contribution records
. On appeal, Mirarchi contends that summary judgment is improper because there is a genuine dispute over whether it owes NEBF unpaid contributions. Finding no error, we affirm. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, “vie wing the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Emmett v. Johnson , 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008 ) . Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matte r of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a )
. A court should grant summary judgment unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Li berty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986) . We conclude that, in this case, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-32065

                                 $1,000,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
                Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing Supplement, dated March 12, 1998 (To Prospectus Supplement, dated August
27, 1997, to Prospectus, dated August 27, 1997).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

         The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement
and modify, to the extent applicable, the description of general terms and
provisions of Citicorp's Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E, set forth in
the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement. Capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:         6.600% Subordinated Notes Due March 15, 2013 (the
                        "Notes").

Aggregate
Principal Amount:       $10,000,000.00.

Price to Public:        100.00%.

Issue Date:             March 18, 1998.

Stated Maturity Date:   March 15, 2013.

Interest Rate:          6.600%.

Interest Payment Dates: Monthly, on the 15th day of each month, commencing in
                        April 1998, and at Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:   The first day of the month in which the related Interest
                        Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:           None.

Redemption:             The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole but not in
                        part, at the option of Citicorp, on not more than 60 or
                        less than 30 days' notice, on any Interest Payment Date
                        on or after March 15, 2001, at a redemption price of
                        100% of their principal amount plus accrued and unpaid
                        interest to the redemption date.

Purchaser:              J.W. Korth & Co.

Discount:               2.400%.

Minimum Denomination:   $1,000.

CUSIP Number:           17303 MHU 6.
#### Clarence SMITH and Adelaide Smith, his wife, Appellants, v. BUS STOPS OF GREATER MIAMI, Inc., a Florida corporation, and City of Miami, a municipal corporation, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Aug. 8, 1956.

*222Mason, Forer & Foster, Miami, for appellants.

Gramling & Gramling, Miami, for Bus Stops of Greater Miami, Inc.

Olavi M. Hendrickson and Robert Haver-field, Miami, for City of Miami.

ROBERTS, Justice.

The appellees, City of Miami and Bus Stops of Greater Miami, Inc. (“the corporation” hereafter), entered into a contract by which the City granted permission to the corporation to place “distinctive markers” along the city streets, in consideration for which the corporation agreed to pay the city $8 per year per marker. The markers were to be placed at bus stops along the regular bus routes and, in addition to indicating the bus stop, would provide other information of interest to the public, such as weather forecasts, safety slogans, and schedules of public events. The contract also provided that the corporation could use a small portion of the space on the marker, not to exceed 380 square inches, “for display advertising of a tasteful and suitable nature.”

The instant suit was filed by the appellants against the City and the corporation to enjoin the erection of such a marker on the street right-of-way abutting their premises on the ground that the City had no authority to contract for the use of its streets for private advertising purposes and the proposed marker would constitute a public and private nuisance. The lower -court dismissed their complaint, and hence this appeal.

It is conceded that the City has no express legislative authority to enter into the contract in question; and the sole issue here is whether the authority to do so may be implied from its general police power or its express charter authority to regulate the use of its streets. This issue must be decided adversely to the City’s contention.

It is universally held that, in the absence of express legislative authority, a city has no power to grant to a private individual a privilege to use any portion of its streets or sidewalks for a special private purpose. Edwards v. Town of Lantana, Fla. 1955, 77 So.2d 245; Gates v. City Council of Bloomfield, 1951, 243 Iowa 1, 50 N.W.2d 578; Brough v. Ute Stampede Ass’n, 1943, 105 Utah 446, 142 P.2d 670; Owl Protective Co. v. Public Service Commission, 1936, 123 Pa.Super. 382, 187 A. 229, 231; Terrell v. Tracy, 1950, 312 Ky. 631, 229 S.W.2d 433; State ex rel. Beck v. City of Hutchinson, 1936, 144 Kan. 700, 62 P.2d 865; City of Birmingham v. Holt, 1940, 239 Ala. 248, 194 So. 538; State ex rel. Belt v. City of St. Louis, 1901, 161 Mo. 371, 61 S.W. 658; People ex rel. Healy v. Clean Street Company, 1907, 225 Ill. 470, 80 N.E. 298, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 455.

Accordingly, the decree appealed from should be and it is hereby reversed, under the authority of the cases above cited, and the cause remanded for the entry of a decree in favor of the appellants.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

TERRELL, Acting C. J., and O’CONNELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      ( print page 50825)    
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.

*Time and Date:*                         9 a.m.-2 p.m., October 7, 2008 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Global Communications Center, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, GA 30333, 404-639-3138.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Centers for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, FOA DD09-001.”                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Susan Stanton, D.D.S., Scientific Review Officer, Office of the Chief Science Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D74, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone 404-639-4640.                    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: August 22, 2008.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E8-19946 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          62,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  270,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,008,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,378,704
<PP&E>                                         854,120
<DEPRECIATION>                               (657,665)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,731,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          708,480
<BONDS>                                     19,178,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,167
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                (18,158,754)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,731,168
<SALES>                                        629,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               629,408
<CGS>                                          369,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               292,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             385,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (417,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (417,896)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 38,411
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (456,307)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT

                      Dated the 10th day of December, 2004

For good and valuable consideration (receipt and sufficiency is hereby
acknowledged), Xili USA Inc. (the "Assignor") hereby assigns all rights, title
and interest to a Promissory Note (copy attached hereto), issued by Royce
Biomedical Inc. to the Assignor, to Curvelo Trade & Finance Ltd. (the
"Assignee").


/s/ Wan Xie Yan                 /s/ Garcia Cordoba Guadalupe Xochinua
----------------------------    ----------------------------------------
Assignor, Xili USA Inc.         Assignee, Curvelo Trade & Finance Ltd.



This Assignment is hereby acknowledged by Royce Biomedical Inc.

/s/ Kathy Jiang
-----------------------------
by its authorized signatory
Royce Biomedical Inc.
Exhibit 23.1.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We have issued our report dated March 14, 2011, with respect to the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-167652, 333-137952 and 333-137953) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-148750).  /s/ Grant Thornton LLP  Baltimore, Maryland March 14, 2011
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





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








Date: May 13, 2011
By:
/s/ Randy LiebleRandy LiebleChief Financial Officer
## NUMBER 13
- 1 2
- 00697
- C V
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

IN RE LLOYD R. CARY JR.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator, Lloyd R. Cary Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to stay trial in the above cause on November 9, 2012. To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal . In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishi ng opinions and memorandum opinions).2

mandamus relief , and this burden is a heavy one

. In re CSX Corp ., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding)

. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not his burden to
obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36 ;
see also T EX

. R. C IV

. P . 204.1 ; Coates v. Whittington , 758 S.W.2d 749, 753 (Tex. 198 8)

. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion to stay trial are DENIED.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 13th day of November , 2012

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Securities
and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 29, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                          42,300
<SECURITIES>                                    12,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                  522,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    515,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,366,100
<PP&E>                                       1,854,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,361,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,068,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,027,500
<BONDS>                                        297,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     379,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,068,500
<SALES>                                        390,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               390,600
<CGS>                                          243,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  403,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)
        

</TABLE>