alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3120
JOHNNY DEAN POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusKRATCH, Arresting Officer Detective; SUNPAPERS; PETER HERMANN; JAYNE MILLER, WBAL News Reporter, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-2968-DKC) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Dean Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Powell v. Kratch , No. CA-95-2968-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 27, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-REB-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG, Nurse of (DRDC) (CDOC),

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 3, 2012.

Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Assistance in Obtaining Medical Records and X-Rays [filed

December 3, 2012; docket #57] is denied. Discovery in this case is currently stayed pending

resolution of the motion to dismiss and, even if it were not, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c), the

Court is required only to assist prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis with expenses related to

printing a record on appeal or printing a transcript of court proceedings under certain circumstances.

Case 1:11-cv-02554-REB-MEH Document 59 Filed 12/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
S. 1099

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals employed 

by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission eligible to obtain 

Federal health insurance.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. HEALTH INSURANCE. 

Section 8901(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; and 

(3) by inserting before the matter following subparagraph 

(I) the following: 

‘‘(J) an individual who is employed by the Roosevelt 

Campobello International Park Commission and is a citizen 

of the United States,’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>       JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                  23,865,034 
<SECURITIES>                  0    
<RECEIVABLES>            2,569,594 
<ALLOWANCES>                  0    
<INVENTORY>                   0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>        26,434,628 
<PP&E>                  24,936,801 
<DEPRECIATION>          15,202,196 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>         140,402,649 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>    2,854,728 
<BONDS>                 63,383,517 
<COMMON>                      0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0    
<PREFERRED>                   0    
<OTHER-SE>              57,176,410 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>140,402,649 
<SALES>                 12,674,675 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>        13,273,998 
<CGS>                         0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>            5,628,500 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>           449,100 
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>       3,044,738 
<INCOME-PRETAX>          4,151,660 
<INCOME-TAX>                  0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>      3,364,690 
<DISCONTINUED>                0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0    
<CHANGES>                     0    
<NET-INCOME>             3,364,690 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                17.03 
<EPS-DILUTED>                17.03 

        


</TABLE>
#### OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL # 4-447, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-2346

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1977.

Dennis M. Angelico, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Lawrence J. Molony, Terence E. Hall, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

The union was awarded a judgment under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq. for payment of unpaid vacation benefits under a collective bargaining agreement. The only issue is whether the court erred in declining to award pre-judgment interest (post-judgment interest was awarded).

The general federal rule is that in the absence of a statutory provision the award of pre-judgment interest is in the discretion of the court. *Wolf v. Frank,*477 F.2d 467 (CA 5, 1973) (§ 10b-5 securities case); *Dennis*v. *Central Gulf Steamship,*453 F.2d 137 (CA 5, 1972) (admiralty); *Weeks v. Alonzo Cothron,*493 F.2d 538 (CA 5, 1974) (longshoremen and harbor workers); *Solomon v. Warren,*540 F.2d 777 (CA 5, 1976) (DOHSA). The LMRA contains no explicit provision. We apply the general rule to this case. The Second Circuit has done the same. *Lodges 743 and 1746 v. United Aircraft Corp.,*534 F.2d 422 (CA 2, 1975).

No basis is shown for holding that the district judge abused his discretion other than the contention that plaintiffs should be given pre-judgment interest to make them whole. This reason would apply with respect to any § 301 suit in which plaintiff successfully sues for money allegedly due under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. This is not alone sufficient basis for a finding of abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,199
<INVENTORY>                                     96,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,097
<PP&E>                                          60,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 320,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,289
<BONDS>                                        180,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   320,755
<SALES>                                      1,830,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,830,164
<CGS>                                        1,697,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,917
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,497
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,032
<INVENTORY>                                     13,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,857
<PP&E>                                       1,525,414
<DEPRECIATION>                                 459,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,193,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,053,999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        356
<COMMON>                                         1,870
<OTHER-SE>                                    (862,320)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,193,905
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,377
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,344,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,406,045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,406,045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (546,577)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,952,622)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (4.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.27)


</TABLE>
#### James Earl ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44534.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1972.

Geo. T. Morris, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Frank Coffey, Dist. Atty., and John Garrett Hill, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of burglary. The jury assessed the punishment at five years.

Officer B. M. Wall of the Fort Worth Police Department testified that around 2:30 a.m. on June 11, 1970, he checked Ed Hall’s Fina Station on East Vickery Street in Fort Worth and found the doors locked. Approximately fifteen minutes later he came back by the station, saw the door open and saw appellant about three feet inside the doorway. The appellant came out and went toward the back of the station. Officer Wall, with his police dog, chased appellant without ever losing sight of him. The appellant was apprehended, handcuffed, warned and searched. A padlock and a nail were found in his pocket. The padlock was the same kind as was on the other padlocked door of the station.

Edwin Hall testestified that he operated this service station and had locked all its doors on June 10, 1970, between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. He gave no one permission to enter it. He was called from his home at about 3:00 a.m. and went to the service station. He found that a padlock had been broken and several cases of soda water inside the station moved. No merchandise was taken from the building.

The appellant testified that he found the door open, was curious, and picked up the *773padlock to throw at dogs, but that he did not enter the station.

The jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant broke and entered the building with intent to commit theft.

Appellant complains that the court erred in denying his requested charge on circumstantial evidence. In Leaderbrand v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 457 S.W.2d 557, the defendant was seen leaving the burglarized building. It was held that the trial court properly denied a charge on circumstantial evidence. In the present case the appellant was seen inside the burglarized building. We hold that no charge on circumstantial evidence was required.

Appellant presented further arguments under eighteen additional grounds of error in a five-page brief citing no authorities. To set them out would only lengthen this opinion and add nothing to the jurisprudence of this State. Each has been reviewed and none presents reversible error. See Boatright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 472 S.W.2d 765.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORRISON, J., not participating.
* 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

November 7, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20871

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS GALINDO-SAUCEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(4:02-CR-379-1)

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jesus Galindo-Saucedo appeals his

212-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine.

Galindo argues that his sentence should be vacated and the case

remanded for resentencing before a different judge because the

government breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend a

sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range at the

sentencing hearing. 
2

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the government was

required to recommend that Galindo receive a sentence at the low

end of the applicable Guideline range if Galindo complied “fully

with all the terms of this plea agreement, specifically including

his successful efforts to earn a substantial assistance downward

departure as set out herein.” Galindo did not successfully earn a

substantial-assistance downward departure as plainly required under

the terms of the plea agreement, and he conceded as much at

sentencing. Thus, the government’s failure to make the

recommendation was not error, plain or otherwise. See United

States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001); United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02626-CMA-MJW

SHAWN D. ALLEN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BUENA VISTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

JOHNNY DAVIS,

GERALD KNAPIC, and

JAMES GRIGGS,

All Sued in Their Official and Individual Capacities,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that for the reasons stated in the Response (Docket No.

19), the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Treat and Respond to Defendants Motion to

Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 17) is denied.

Date: February 15, 2012 

Case 1:11-cv-02626-CMA-MJW Document 21 Filed 02/15/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Richard C. HAYES and Frank M. Jones, Trustees of the Consolidated Fisheries Company, Owner of The Steamer Mary B. Garner, Libelants and Appellants, v. ROBINS DRY DOCK & REPAIR COMPANY and Todd Dry Dock Engineering & Repair Company, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 103.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1938.

Macklin, Brown, Lenahan & Speer, of New York City (Gerald J. McKernan and Horace L. Cheyney, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Crowell & Rouse, of New York City (Ei Curtis Rouse and George L. Varían, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

*1006Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

OTHONIER ALTRUZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 221 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.01

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 Sbarro, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Beaudrault, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 8, 2008



|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Peter Beaudrault                                                                                                    
|Peter Beaudrault Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

NOTE: A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company 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                          

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gulf Onshore, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Cowen, Chief Financial 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, that, to my knowledge:



|  |                                                                                                                                                     
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.

By:/s/ Richard CowenRichard CowenChief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting OfficerMay 12, 2011



|
|
|
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Benton,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 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 financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Jeffrey Benton

Jeffrey Benton
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 7, 2004

                                                                             23.
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, DaimlerChrysler
            Debenture-Backed Series 2002-4 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports
            on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports of the
            Trust filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by
            this annual report of the Trust;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
            a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered
            by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
            required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
            pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
            reports is included in these reports; and

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or
            similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual
            compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
            disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each
            fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 28, 2005


         /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
--------------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Vice President