alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-60212 Conference Calendar

__________________ CARLO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOAN ROSS, RAYMOND ROBERTS, FLOYD BASS, CO-1 HARRIS, LT. HOLMAN, STEVE PUCKETT, ANN LEE, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-61-B-D

- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlo Williams, # 83004, challenges the dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams argues that the "D-Custody" to which he was assigned imposes atypical and significant hardship on him. We have reviewed the record and Williams's brief and AFFIRM the district court's dismissal because Williams failed to allege a legally arguable constitutional claim. See Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc. ,No. 96-60212 -2- 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992); Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300-01 (1995).
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-15-00032-CV



### _________________
IN RE MUJTABA ALI KHAN

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ Original Proceeding

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition accompanied by a motion for temporary relief, Relator, Mujtaba Ali Khan, asks this Court to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the judge of the 284th District Court of Montgomery Count y, Texas, “from ho lding any contempt proceedings to enforce any orders currently on appeal before th is Court[.]” Relator currently has pending before this Court an appeal from a judgment on the merits and an appeal from a turnover order in the same case. The judgment orders Relator to transfer his ownership interest in Xe non Anesthesia of Texas PLLC to the real party in interest, Haroon Chaudhry, M.D., and awards attorney’s fees. The judgment has not been superseded. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(a)(2). The turnover2 order requires Relator to deliver an executed Equity Interest Assignment Agreement transferring Relator’s interest in the company to Chaudhry and orders Relator to pay attorney’s fees to Chaudhr y. The trial court has scheduled a show cause hearing for January 28, 2015, to determine whether Relator should be held in contempt for disobeying the turnover order. The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to “protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unl awful interference with the enforcement of a superior court’s orders and judgments.” Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989). In this case, Relator has not shown that the trial court lacks authority to hold contempt proceedings and enforce its orders. “A trial court is free to aid execution while an unsuperseded judgment is on appeal.” In re Sheshtawy , 154 S.W.3d 114, 124 (Tex. 2004). “An appellate court still re tains the overarching power to stay any actions of a trial court, including contempt pro ceedings, that may interfere with its jurisdiction or the subject matter of the appeal.” Id. Relator contends that he has a meritorious appeal, but he has not demonstrated that the issuance of a writ of prohibition is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (West 2004). We deny the petition for a writ of prohibition and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.3 PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 22, 2015 Opinion Delivered January 22, 2015 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
#### William MAHER, Appellant, v. Nathaniel J. KLEIN, Alfred Solomon and Rose Solomon, his Wife, and Sheldon Dobkin and Rosalind Dobkln, his Wife, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Feb. 23, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 132 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.132

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii, as the ``Goro Hokama Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 620 
Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Goro Hokama Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Goro Hokama Post Office 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
1Rix titles his original complaint (document no. 1)

“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition in Equity” and his

amended complaint (document no. 5) “Amended petition in Equity.” 

I find, however, that Rix has alleged a violation of his federal 

constitutional rights by state actors, and that his claim is

therefore a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which

creates a cause of action against those who, acting under color

of state law, deprive individuals of “any rights, privileges or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United

States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled

on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986);

Rodriguez-Cirilo v. Garcia, 115 F.3d 50, 52 (1st Cir. 1997). I

will consider both his original and amended petitions, in the

aggregate, to be the complaint in this matter.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael D. Rix

v. Civil No. 05-cv-354-JD

Fredrick Serna, et al.

O R D E R

Michael Rix has filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1

alleging that the defendants have violated his Fourteenth

Amendment due process rights and his Eighth Amendment right not

to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and related

claims under state law. Because Rix filed this action as a

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the matter is

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 8 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 3
2

before me for preliminary review to determine whether the

complaint states a claim upon which relief might be granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A; United States District Court for the District

of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2).

As fully explained in the Report and Recommendation issued

simultaneously with this Order, Rix has alleged facts sufficient

to allow four claims of inadequate medical care to proceed:

denial of a medically appropriate diet, denial of properly

administered medication, denial of adequate foot care and denial

of proper treatment for a cyst. However, Rix has failed to name

any defendant to these claims. 

Therefore, I direct Rix to amend his complaint within thirty

(30) days of today’s date, to state, with specificity, who was

responsible for denying him the medical care to which he was

entitled in each of these four instances. Rix must name specific

individuals and state with particularity what each named

defendant did to violate his constitutional right to adequate

medical care. If Rix is not in possession of the names of

medical care providers at the Strafford County House of

Correction (“SCHC”), he is entitled to receive a copy of his 

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 8 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 3
3

medical records, which should contain the names of the medical

personnel at the SCHC responsible for his care and treatment.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 21, 2006

cc: Michael D. Rix, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 8 Filed 02/21/06 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                           AMERUS LIFE HOLDINGS, INC.
          EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



     PRO FORMA WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES* (in thousands)

     Class A Common Stock owned by AmerUs Group        11,707
     Class A Common Stock owned by the public           6,449
     Class B Common Stock owned by AmerUs Group         5,000
                                                       ------

                                                       23,156
                                                       ------
                                                       ------

     *    The issuance of Class A and Class B Common Stock is considered to have
          occurred as of January 1, 1996 for pro forma purposes; therefore, the
          weighted average number of shares outstanding is 23,156,000.  The
          Company has no dilution of shares.

PRIMARY PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                             Three Months Ended March 31,
                                             ----------------------------
                                                  1997           1996
                                                  ----           ----

Primary Pro Forma Earnings Per Common Share       $0.63          $1.93
                                                  -----          -----
                                                  -----          -----


                                      -34-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Covance
consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001023131
<NAME>                        Covance Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                         US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      17,072,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              146,818,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 17,547,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           225,081,000
<PP&E>                                     346,838,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             167,635,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             466,929,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      164,377,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       574,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 140,561,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               466,929,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           432,579,000
<CGS>                                      285,099,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              374,316,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (111,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,375,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             51,999,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                22,151,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         30,005,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                30,005,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
H. R. 1384

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route in Arizona and

New Mexico which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced

to walk in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential addition to the National Trails

System.

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 ‘‘Long Walk National Historic

Trail Study Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Beginning in the fall of 1863 and ending in the winter

of 1864, the United States Government forced thousands of

Navajos and Mescalero Apaches to relocate from their ancestral

lands to Fort Sumner, New Mexico, where the tribal members

were held captive, virtually as prisoners of war, for over 4

years.

(2) Thousands of Native Americans died at Fort Sumner

from starvation, malnutrition, disease, exposure, or conflicts

between the tribes and United States military personnel.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.

1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(ll) The Long Walk Trail, a series of routes which the

Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk

beginning in the fall of 1863 as a result of their removal by the

United States Government from their ancestral lands, generally

located within a corridor extending through portions of Canyon
H. R. 1384—2

de Chelley, Arizona, and Albuquerque, Canyon Blanco, Anton Chico,

Canyon Piedra Pintado, and Fort Sumner, New Mexico.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT

I,
Peter G. Schoonmaker, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



/S/ PETER G. SCHOONMAKER Peter G. Schoonmaker President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
April 15, 2009

---



QuickLinks
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2009- CR
- 5415, s t y l ed S ta te o f T e x a s v . D o n ta D a ra y A u b re ty , i n t he 3 7 9 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable Ro n R angel presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -1 0- 00 06 4- CR IN RE D o n t a

D ar ay AUBRETY Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 17, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On Janu ary 28 , 2 01 0, rela tor

Do nta Da ra y Au br e ty fi le d a pe tit ion fo r wri t of

mand a mus , c omp la ini ngof

the tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to r ule on his pr o s e mot ion to d ism iss his a pp ointe d c ouns e l, Jo s e p h A n th o n y

H e r n an d e z. Howeve r, in or der to obta in a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to c onsider and rule on a motion, a relator must establish that the trial c ourt: (1) ha d a leg al duty to perform a nondiscretionar

y act; (2) was a sked to perf orm the ac t; and (3) f

ailed or r efuse d to do so. In re M olina , 94 S.W .3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Anton i o 2003, orig . proce eding ) (pe r cur iam). When a proper ly filed motion is pending be fore a trial c ourt, the ac t of g iving c onsideration to and r uling04
- 10
- 00 06 4- CR

- 2- upon that motion is minist eria l, and mandamus may i s s u e to compel the trial judg e to ac t. See Sa fe ty -K le e n Cor p. v. G ar c ia , 9 4 5 S
. W
. 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o 1 9 9 7 , o ri g. p roce eding ). Howeve r, mandamus will not issue unless the re cord shows that a prope rly filed motion has awaited dispositi on for an unrea sonable amount of time. See id. I t is relator’s bur den to pr ovide this c ourt with a rec ord sufficie nt to establish his right to re lief. W alker v. Packe r , 827 S.W. 2d 83 3, 83 7 ( Te x. 19 92 ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a ). The re cord be fore us fails to establish relator is entitled to the relief r equeste d. Relator ind ic a te s he f

ile d h is pro se motion to dismiss his a ppointed counsel on J anuar y 26, 2010, just two da y s p ri or to f ili ngthi s p e tit ion

fo r wri t of

mandamus . Atr ia l c ourt ha s a re a so na ble tim e wi thi n which to per form its minist eria l duty
. See Safe ty-Kleen , 945 S.W .2d at 269. Relator has not established the motion has aw aited disposition for an unre asonable amount of time. Be cause relator has not met his burden of providing a rec ord establishing that a motion was proper ly filed and has awa ited dispositi on for an unrea sonable amount of time, he ha s not provided this court with gr ounds to usurp the trial cour t’s inhere nt authority

to control its o wn d o cket. See I n r e M e nd oz a , 1 31 S.W .3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig . proce eding ). Acc ording ly , relator’s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
. P E R C U R I A M DO NO T PU B L I SH
U.S. DF I

District c

PIN 620o6

FI LEJj

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Elena Katz

V .

Kris A . Menzie, et al

Case No . 05-fp-46 3

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted .

This case has been assigned number 05 -cvSO ORDERED .

United States District Judge

Date :

cc : Elena Katz

Case 1:05-cv-00463-JD Document 3 Filed 01/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### Betty Jo BALDWIN, by and through her mother and next friend, Bertha M. Baldwin, and Bertha M. Baldwin, individually, Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

June 18, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
21.1



List
of Subsidiaries:



|Company                                                             |  | Owner                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|Shengda
    Network Technology, Inc.                                |  | Parent                             
|Peaker
    International Trade Group Limited (Hong Kong) (“Peaker”) |  | 100%
    Owned subsidiary of Parent
|Zhejiang
    Jingmai Electronic Commerce Ltd.                       |  | 100%
    Owned subsidiary of Peaker
|Zhejiang
    Jingmai Electronic Commerce Ltd. (China)               |  | 100%
    Owned subsidiary of Peaker
|Yiwu
    Tianqi Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.,                    |  | 99%
    Owned subsidiary of Peaker 
|Zhejiang
    Jingmai e-commerce Co., Ltd.                           |  | 99%
    Owned subsidiary of Peaker 
|Zhejiang
    Jingtao Supply Chain Co., Ltd.                         |  | 99%
    Owned subsidiary of Peaker 
|Zhejiang
    Xiaojing e-commerce Co., Ltd.                          |  | 99%
    Owned subsidiary of Peaker
#### Murphy *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 24179

Decided June 7, 1933.)

*Mr. Edward M. Ballard*and *Mr. Thomas J. Howard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Louis J. Schneider,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Dudley Miller Outcalt,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the *90reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Allen, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard, Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
October 31, 2003

/s/WILLIAM E. KLITGAARDWilliam E. Klitgaard
Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---

QuickLinks